You can learn a lot about a person in one minute. Remember when Prime Minister Justin Trudeau took our 60-Second Challenge? His impromptu poetry recital and sly allusion to a certain alter ego—Smokey Sussex—made headlines aroundthe world. We asked Trudeau’s parliamentary colleagues from every party to take the same challenge. Conservative MP Peter Kent played along. What did he wish he’d known as a rookie MP? He’d have liked to know how to be, let’s say, strategically vocal.

Maclean’s andl’actualité will celebrate a new class of MPs at Welcome to the Hill, a gala event at Ottawa’s Chateau Laurier on Feb. 23. The evening will culminate in a ceremony that honours an outstanding former parliamentarian with a lifetime achievement award.

]]>
http://www.macleans.ca/multimedia/video/peter-kent-60-seconds/feed/0Direct democracy arrives at the House of Commonshttp://www.macleans.ca/politics/ottawa/direct-democracy-arrives-at-the-house-of-commons/
http://www.macleans.ca/politics/ottawa/direct-democracy-arrives-at-the-house-of-commons/#respondTue, 22 Dec 2015 15:28:13 +0000http://www.macleans.ca/?p=814063Ottawa's e-petition site offers Canadians a new way to control the agenda in the House

Republican Presidential candidate and business mogul Donald Trump exits his plane during his trip to the border on July 23, 2015 in Laredo, Texas. (Matthew Busch/Getty Images)

It will surely come as a blow to Donald Trump’s ego that fewer than 2,000 people want to see him barred from entering Canada. For a man who is used to “huge,” “tremendous” and “amazing” responses to his every pronouncement and provocation, e-54 (Inadmissibility to Canada) hardly moves the needle. The e-petition—one of the seven currently open for signatures on Parliament’s new foray into web democracy—might even be too polite for his taste. (The proposed travel ban ends as soon as the would-be Republican presidential candidate “withdraws and apologizes” for his remarks about keeping Muslims out of the United States.) But The Donald can take solace in one thing, the enormous potential such click-and-sign protests have to make Canadian politics more like him: blunt, shambolic and unafraid.

“As an MP you see people’s frustration and cynicism first-hand. They’re moving away from politics in droves,” says Kennedy Stewart, the NDP member for Burnaby South, who spearheaded the drive for federal e-petitions. “And this gives them a chance—in a limited way—to control the agenda in the House of Commons.”

Stewart, a professor of public policy in his former life, used some old-fashioned political tactics to help bring web democracy to Ottawa. After investigating sites that allow voters to petition the U.K. Parliament and Barack Obama’s White House, he sought support from across the spectrum, lobbying MPs from all parties, and recruiting Ed Broadbent and Preston Manning to the cause, as well as unlikely bedfellows the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives and the Canadian Taxpayers Federation. Then last January, he tabled a motion, rather than a bill in the House, ensuring there would be only vote instead of three. Despite the Harper government’s opposition, eight backbench Tories sided with the NDP and Liberals, and the measure squeaked by 142-140.

A provision that would have seen all petitions that reached 100,000 signatures given a hour’s debate in the House was dropped in committee. “That’s the price I had to pay to get it through,” says Stewart. The rules and regulations were hammered out last spring, and the web site went live on Dec. 4.

Canadians have always been able to petition their government the old-fashioned way, by pounding the pavement, collecting a minimum of 25 signatures “on paper of usual size” (8.5 x 11, or 8.5 x 14-inches, the rules specify, with no attachments) and convincing an MP to table it for them.

But the new system should make it considerably easier. A petitioner drafts a short—250 words max.—and direct plea for action or change in an area of federal jurisdiction, and provides the names and contact information of five to 10 supporters. Then they find an MP to “sponsor” the petition. The Clerk of Petitions vets the language and validates the initial signatures, and then the petition goes up on the site, where any Canadian resident, regardless of age, can signal their support by providing a name, email address and phone number. (That information stays confidential, with only the name of the originator appearing on the web.) The e-petition is kept open for 120 days, and if it gains 500 or more supporters, is certified and presented to the House. As with the paper versions, the government then has 45-days to provide a formal response.

Stewart sponsored the first e-petition, e-1 (Cruelty to Animals), a proposal brought forward by two of his constituents to ban electric shock training collars for cats and dogs. He has since agreed to help two others, the Trump entry ban, and a call for an official inquiry into how Canada’s Armed Forces dealt with battlefield detainees in Afghanistan. A prominent disclaimer on the petitions site warns that MP sponsorship is not an endorsement, but Stewart says he is comfortable with all the views he is promising to bring forward. “I wouldn’t have signed on if I didn’t agree,” he says. “And really, it’s just to spur the debate. I don’t think any topic should be off-limits unless it’s deliberately hurtful.”

To date, the most popular e-petition, with just over 3,500 signatures, opposes the Trudeau Liberals’ plan to roll-back contribution limits on Tax-Free Savings Accounts, originated by a lobby group called Working Canadians, which promises to “fight back against union bosses.” When it is eventually presented to Parliament, it will be a first for its sponsor, Conservative MP Peter Kent, who never had the opportunity to table a paper petition was he was part of the government. “I like this process,” he says. “Sometimes when people signed a paper petition it seemed to go into the void. It wasn’t transparent and couldn’t be monitored in the same way.”

When the e-petition regulations come up for review in two years, Stewart hopes to convince the Liberals to revisit his bid for a guaranteed debate at the 100,000-signature threshold. The U.K. Parliament has so far discussed the merits of more than 30 web proposals, including pleas to stop a badger cull, enact regulations on the sale of puppies and kittens, and strip convicted London rioters of all government benefits.

(When the White House We the People petition site debuted in late 2011, the threshold for an official response was just 25,000 signatures. It was later increased to 100,000 after the administration was obliged to deny a request to start building a Death Star.)

So far, Canada’s e-petitions are far tamer, and eliciting less support than those in other countries. But that will almost certainly change. The most popular petition in the UK at the moment, with 564,000 signatures, seeks to ban Donald J. Trump from entering the country, forever. And running right behind, with 454,000 supporters, is one to stop all immigration and close the borders “until ISIS is defeated.” Very direct democracy.

No one saw this coming. The polls predicted a Liberal minority. The pundits spent the weekend hedging their bets, raising the prospect of a last-minute surge by the NDP or an underestimation of the Conservatives’ poll numbers. In the end, the Liberal wave swept dozens of big-name candidates from their seats. Nonetheless, there were a number of notable victories for the Conservatives and the NDP. Here are five of the most significant victories and losses of the night:

THE WINNERS

Peter Kent, Conservative (Thornhill, Ont.)

The former minister of the environment is now one of only two Conservatives left in the Greater Toronto Area. Although many Conservative candidates in neighbouring ridings—several of whom were incumbents—put up strong fights, only Kent and Bob Saroya in Markham–Unionville survived the Liberal wave.

Julie Dabrusin, Liberal (Toronto–Danforth, Ont.)

Jack Layton represented Toronto–Danforth from 2004 to 2011 and many considered the riding unwinnable by anyone other than the NDP at the beginning of the campaign. Dabrusin’s victory over Craig Scott completed the Liberals’ rout of the NDP in Toronto. The party Layton led won zero seats in Toronto, despite running a number of star candidates, including Linda McQuaig, Olivia Chow, Peggy Nash and Jennifer Hollett.

Darshan Kang, Liberal (Calgary Skyview, Alta.)

The Liberals have not won in Calgary since 1968. Kang’s victory is a bellwether for changing sentiments in Alberta. Although the Conservatives still took home a significant majority of the seats in the province, the Liberals made a fight of it in a number of Alberta ridings, a far cry from 2011, when they were virtually shut out.

Pierre Poilievre, Conservative (Carleton, Ont.)

The former Conservative minister for employment and social development and democratic reform won his seat in the newly created riding of Carleton, Ont., by a margin of 2,000—a far cry from the 20,000-vote spread he enjoyed in 2011. But he won it nonetheless. Eight of the 10 Ottawa-area ridings went Liberal last night, including the formerly Conservative ridings of Glengarry–Prescott–Russell and Orléans.

Ruth Ellen Brosseau, NDP (Berthier-Maskinongé, Que.)

Brosseau was one of the candidates elected in the Orange Wave in 2011, and she was held up as an example of its excesses. She had never been to the riding until after she won it, so a win this time around is a genuine stamp of approval, as she worked over the past four years to gain the respect of skeptical constituents.

THE LOSERS

Gilles Duceppe, Bloc Québécois (Laurier-Sainte Marie, Que.)

The Bloc leader lost to NDP candidate Hélène Laverdière for a second time last night. The silver lining: He managed to bring the party’s seat count from two to 10.

Joe Oliver, Conservative (Eglinton–Lawrence, Ont.)

The finance minister faced two star candidates, Liberal Marco Mendicino and the NDP’s Andrew Thomson, a former Saskatchewan finance minister. He lost to Mendicino by more than 2,000 votes.

Chris Alexander, Conservative (Ajax, Ont.)

The riding Alexander took from former Liberal MP Mark Holland in 2011 turned red again this election. As citizenship and immigration minister, Alexander came under fire for the government’s handling of the Syrian refugee crisis and other divisive citizenship issues.

Bernard Valcourt, Conservative (Madawaska–Restigouche, N.B.)

The former minister for Aboriginal affairs lost by nearly 12,000 votes to Liberal candidate René Arseneault. One of the first ministers to lose on election night, his fate was a harbinger for what was to come.

Olivia Chow, NDP (Spadina–Fort York, Ont.)

This is Chow’s second electoral loss in as many years. (She failed in her attempt for the Toronto mayoralty.) Her defeat on Monday is especially significant, considering that, on federal election night in 2011, she and husband Jack Layton led the New Democrats to official Opposition status on the crest of the Orange Wave.

]]>http://www.macleans.ca/politics/ottawa/election-nights-biggest-winners-and-losers/feed/1Canada’s Cuban ties and the Washington-Havana thawhttp://www.macleans.ca/politics/ottawa/canadas-cuban-ties-and-the-washington-havana-thaw/
http://www.macleans.ca/politics/ottawa/canadas-cuban-ties-and-the-washington-havana-thaw/#commentsThu, 18 Dec 2014 14:37:25 +0000http://www.macleans.ca/?p=654307Cuba even tried to help Canada at the UN

U.S. President Barack Obama (L) greets Cuban President Raul Castro (C) before giving his speech, as Brazil’s President Dilma Rousseff looks on, at the memorial service for late South African President Nelson Mandela at the First National Bank soccer stadium, also known Soccer City, in Johannesburg December 10, 2013. (Kai Pfaffenbach, Reuters)

Back in 2007, before Prime Minister Stephen Harper promoted him to cabinet, Jason Kenney was chairing the House of Commons subcommittee on international human rights, when he decided to convene a series of meetings on the fraught subject of human rights in Cuba.

In one of those sessions, two representatives of Canadian unions who had visited Cuba gave what might be described as a naively sympathetic account of the role of Cuba’s state-sanctioned labour unions, prompting Kenney to set aside the customary reserve of the chair to ask a few pointed questions of his own.

“You both spoke at length about your trips to Cuba,” he said. “Have either of you ever visited a Cuban prison where there were political prisoners? Have either of you ever spoken to people who have spent time in Cuban jails as a consequence of political activities?

They had not. A disgusted Kenney probed further. “Are either of you familiar with the Varela project in Cuba? It is a project on the part of civil society to collect signatures to demand electoral reform and a real choice in elections. You haven’t heard about that. Have either of you read any reports from organizations like Freedom House, Human Rights First, Human Rights Watch, or Amnesty International about the human rights situation in Cuba?”

That morally outraged attitude was, and, I would guess, remains, the favoured tone of many Canadian Conservatives toward Cuba. It is based, as Kenney’s informed hectoring reminds us, on perfectly valid criticism of the Havana regime. It doesn’t hurt that U.S. Republican opinion vocally supports the same stance, or that a lot of older Tories haven’t forgotten to be offended by the memory of Pierre Trudeau’s friendship with Fidel Castro.

So when the big news broke yesterday that U.S. President Barack Obama had negotiated a historic rapprochement with Cuba, it made sense that Harper was guardedly muted in describing his government’s role in hosting the secret talks that led to the breakthrough. All his officials would say is that seven negotiating sessions between the Americans and Cubans were held in Toronto and Ottawa during the past 18 months. Harper told CBC he didn’t want to exaggerate Canada’s contribution.

Still, many Conservatives will have trouble reconciling what they would have assumed was a tougher stance toward Cuba from Harper with the revelation that his government played such a key role in facilitating this thaw, which now has their Republican cousins up in arms. They may be surprised to learn that Canada’s relationship with Cuba has been, in at least some instances, surprisingly co-operative, even cordial, since Harper took office in 2006.

Consider, for instance, the leaked diplomatic notes (part of the WikiLeaks story) that revealed how unhappy Washington was in 2009 when Peter Kent, then Harper’s minister of state for the Americas, failed to issue the ritual public condemnation of Cuba on a visit to Havana. In an interview yesterday, Kent, now a backbench Tory MP, told me about how, the following year, Cuba went out of its way to try to help the Harper government, in what turned out to be an unsuccessful bid to win a seat on the United Nations Security Council.

“The Cuban ambassador was of great help to me,” Kent said. “We had a lunch the week of the vote [in New York], and the Cuban UN ambassador spoke at the table with ambassadors from all of these Latin American ambassadors, and he stood up and said, ‘You can trust Canada. We need Canada on the Security Council.’ ”

Kent went on about the 2010 UN episode: “On the day of the actual vote, on the floor of the General Assembly, as we were all going up and down through the desks and aisles, urging people to stick to their commitment to vote for us, the Cuban ambassador was equally on the floor lobbying for the Canadian vote.” That sort of action sounds to me like a good deal more than diplomatic politesse.

Kent pointed to the obvious economic underpinning of close ties between Canada and Cuba, including mining and other investment, and the flocks of Canadian tourists who travel to Cuba for sun-and-sand vacations. (According to the Department of Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development, Cuba trails only the U.S. and Mexico as a destination for Canadians holidaying abroad, with more than a million Canadians visiting Cuba every year, the island country’s biggest source of tourists.)

As the U.S. debate over Obama’s audacious Cuban move heats up, many Canadian Conservatives will long to hear, on this side of the border, a bit of Kenney’s righteous anger, circa 2007, over Cuba’s lousy human-rights record. Yet it seems that, even in the Harper era, the far bigger factors in this sensitive bilateral relationship are substantial economic interests and, as Kent’s telling anecdote illustrates, complex behind-the-scenes diplomatic ties.

Canada’s Environment Minister Peter Kent speaks during Question Period in the House of Commons on Parliament Hill in Ottawa June 5, 2012. (Chris Wattie/Reuters)

Exactly how Peter Kent fits into the highly disciplined ranks of Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s government and Conservative caucus has always been hard to figure. As an award-winning veteran TV journalist, Kent seemed, back when he was first elected as an Ontario MP in 2008, like the sort of guy who might bring an independent streak to a Tory operation defined by Harper’s astringent message control.

When he was appointed to cabinet, though, his public pronouncements soon fell into the familiar pattern of the government’s approved talking points of the day. After Harper assigned him to the high-profile, high-pressure post of environment minister in 2011, Kent appeared perfectly comfortable with his boss’s inclination to favour the energy industry’s interests.

Still, intermittent reports through the first half of 2013 gave the impression that Kent was presiding over serious behind-closed-doors efforts to finally bring about the Harper government’s long-promised regulations to cut the oil and gas sector’s greenhouse gas emissions. But that push came to a sudden halt when Harper bumped Kent from the portfolio and from cabinet, in a summer 2013 shuffle, to make room for Leona Aglukkaq, who has been invisible on the issue ever since.

I thought of Kent earlier this week, when Harper stood in the House to declare that the notion of Canada regulating oil and gas sector emissions, unless the U.S. does so at the same time, was “crazy,” especially in light of falling crude oil prices. “With the current conditions in the oil and gas sector, this government will not consider unilateral regulation of that sector,” he declared.

So I called the former environment minister, who is now a backbench MP, to ask about his thoughts on Harper’s pronouncement. During a phone interview, I found Kent in a reflective mood, perhaps not surprisingly: He was diagnosed with tongue and throat cancer late last year, and went through months of difficult treatment, before his Toronto doctors gave him the good news, early this fall, that he was cancer-free.

Kent was candid in telling me he thinks he lost his job as environment minister because Harper saw him as too aggressive on those oil and gas regulations, along with other files. “One of the reasons I’m not in the department anymore is probably because I was pushing too hard to fulfill my mandate to complete the regulations across sectors,” he said

He is still bound to keep confidential many elements of the negotiations he hashed over with the energy industry and the provinces most directly involved: Alberta, Saskatchewan and British Columbia. But Kent sketched key aspects of the regulations that never happened—and conceded that he now thinks imposing them would have been a mistake.

He says a range of targets for cutting emissions were discussed. The plan, Kent says, was to charge companies a modest fee for slightly overshooting the targets, while imposing “a much higher penalty for a significant miss.” The money would flow, not into general government coffers, but to funds dedicated to researching technology for cutting emissions.

How close was he to finalizing regulations when he lost his cabinet job? “At that point, when I was still in the department and we were negotiating regs, we progressed a long way. We had great buy-in from the province of Alberta, supportive buy-in from Saskatchewan and British Columbia, in principle, on a number of things, and [the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers] were for the most part participating in the discussions and the negotiations really positively.”

But Kent surprised me on the question of whether Harper should have let him finish the job. With the benefit of hindsight, he now contends that Harper was right to put the brakes on his regulatory drive. “The PM, I’ve got to admit, must have been prescient, because regs today of the sort that we were talking would definitely wrong-foot Canadian producers with the current prices.”

Kent says the policy he tried to implement was based not only on the assumption that crude oil prices wouldn’t plummet, but also on the expectation that Washington would approve the Keystone XL pipeline. If that pipeline linking Alberta’s oil sands with U.S. refineries was built, he says, Canadian producers would be able to charge more than the discounted price they get now for oil that’s difficult to ship to world markets.

All the negotiations on regulations were premised, Kent stresses, on Keystone erasing much of that discount, which would, for the industry, cover “a good part of the cost that would be involved with complying.” The possibility that President Barack Obama might stall Keystone indefinitely wasn’t seriously factored in. “None of us thought this would be dragging on. We thought that between those multiple State Department studies and the jobs and economic considerations that it would be approved.”

So Kent gives Harper credit for preventing the imposition of regulatory costs that might have been too heavy for the sector to shoulder in the absence of key new pipelines, and in the current period of plummeting oil prices. Yet he says he doesn’t regret the way he tackled the file, and is glad he did it without openly feuding with his boss. “I loved it. I probably pushed too hard. I took the job a little more seriously than perhaps I might have. That’s fine,” he says. “I did it in the team context; I didn’t flame out.”

]]>While Alberta Premier Alison Redford says her province won’t increase its price on carbon unless there is a quid pro quo from the United States, the oil industry has, according to documents obtained by Greenpeace, privately told the Alberta and federal governments that a 40% reduction on emissions per barrel and $40 levy per tonne are too much to bear. Peter Kent, it was previously reported, had proposed a 30/30 plan. The Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers apparently pushed for a 20/20 plan.

Now the Mowat Centre releases a report on how Ontario should handle the expansion of pipelines eastward, concluding that a federal price on carbon would account for the environmental problems involved in developing the oil sands.

Ontario’s position on new pipeline projects should be grounded in reality. Canadians use oil and gas in every province in the country. It flows into and across our provinces by pipeline, by tanker, and by rail. The widespread use of fossil fuels in Canada–as well as their transport across provincial and international borders–is not going to stop any time soon. Any Ontario position must recognize that, right now, oil and gas flow through pipelines across our province and that the overwhelming majority of Ontarians accept this. In fact, a recent poll confirmed that a majority of Ontarians support Alberta’s oil sector and proposed pipeline projects.

On the other hand, new oil pipeline infrastructure is only needed if expansion of production in the oil sands is envisioned. Such expansion would significantly increase emissions that contribute to climate change. Some provinces and sectors are doing their share to help Canada achieve its GHG reduction targets, but this progress is being negated by the growth of the oil sands (see Figures 1 and 2). The most realistic and reasonable way for many Canadians to support pipelines and the expansion of oil sands production that would go with them is for this expansion to take place within the context of a federal price on carbon.

A price on carbon would allow for the expansion of the oil sands and pipelines within a context where the damage done to the environment and the climate is priced-in and mitigated. In the end, the expansion of pipelines within the context of a real federal price on carbon is in the interests of Ontario and Canada–and the hydrocarbon-producing provinces as well. Proceeds from a price on carbon could be used to support the transformation of the Canadian energy sector through investments in new research, development and clean technology.

Meanwhile, Christopher Ragan argues that the NDP should implement cap-and-trade in tandem with corporate tax cuts.

Implementing such a cap-and-trade system will obviously increase the costs of using coal, oil and natural gas. Indeed, this is the policy’s central objective – by increasing the costs of “dirty” fuels, the policy provides an incentive to switch toward “cleaner” fuels. But in a modern, energy-intensive economy like ours, increasing the cost of energy will almost certainly reduce the rate of economic growth, which means slowing the ascent of Canadians’ living standards.

If the New Democrats genuinely care about reducing greenhouse gas emissions but equally care about protecting Canadians’ living standards, they should advocate a two-part policy package. The first part is their favoured cap-and-trade system, but one that raises revenue by selling the permits to the highest bidders. The second part would give back this revenue by reducing the most growth-retarding tax in Ottawa’s cupboard – the corporate income tax. The combination would offer Canadians a way to protect the environment and their living standards at the same time.

]]>John Ivison suggests that Peter Kent had some agreement to move forward with a “30/30” plan to regulate carbon emissions from the oil and gas sector.

By all accounts, Mr. Kent had most provinces onside for a regulatory regime that would have seen the introduction of a “30/30” regime – that is, a 30% reduction in emissions levels by large emitters in the oil and gas sector or a $30 a tonne levy into a technology fund. Provinces would have been responsible for administering the regulations and all the proceeds of the levy would have been re-invested within provincial borders. Mr. Kent’s hope was that this would deflect accusations that Ottawa was imposing its own carbon tax — though that may have been wishful thinking.

The point is now moot because the Prime Minister nixed the idea, in part because of concerns that any increase in the cost-base in the oilsands might kill future investment, given massive discount on the world oil price that producers were receiving at the time for Canadian crude (the discount between Western Canada Select and West Texas Intermediate has narrowed from $40 to a still whopping $22 a barrel).

In April it was reported that Alberta had floated the idea of a “40/40” plan. The Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers was reported to prefer a “20/20” plan.

Later that month, Mr. Kent mused aloud about there being a lack of subtlety in the debate around carbon pricing. At the time, he ventured there was some kind of difference between a price “where the revenues go into general revenue and do not guarantee the reduction of a single ton of greenhouse gases” and what Alberta has setup with its technology fund, “wherein their revenues are focused only, and in isolation, on technology to achieve further GHG reductions than the emitters in that province are already able to achieve.”

Would the Harper government consider such a levy? I asked the office of Mr. Kent’s successor as environment minister, Leona Aglukkaq: Is the Harper government open to considering a levy on carbon emissions? “As the regulations are still being developed, it would be premature to comment further,” the department responded. I followed-up: Is the Harper government open to considering a tax on carbon emissions? “No,” came the response from Ms. Aglukkaq’s office. “Unlike other parties, our Government does not support a job killing carbon tax. We will continue to fight for Canadian jobs while protecting the environment.” So I returned to my original question: But the Harper government is open to considering a levy on carbon emissions? “The previous answer provided by the department stands,” explained Ms. Aglukkaq’s office.

Meanwhile, there is another question here: would even a 40/40 plan be enough to meet Canada’s targets for GHG reductions by 2020? When Alberta’s proposal was reported, the Pembina Institute said it wouldn’t be enough.

Alberta’s 40 per cent target is in the range we recommended, but its technology fund price – if left unchanged between now and 2020 – falls well short of what’s needed to get us on track to Canada’s 2020 target that we agreed to in Copenhagen.

Pembina’s counter proposal was a “40/40 plus 10” plan with the price increasing $10 per tonne until it reached $100.

The Harper government, of course, is twice overdue on the promise of new regulations for the oil and gas sector and, according to the CBC’s report last week, the Conservatives are now looking to President Obama for guidance.

I counted eight such predictions in the print or web pages of reputable news organizations. What happened instead was that Harper overhauled his cabinet, promoting eight rookies to the ministry—thus winning their personal gratitude—and giving new homework to a dozen incumbents at the heads of new ministries, reducing the number of idle hands on Parliament Hill. To the rest of us, he promised a new Throne Speech in the autumn to outline a new, or at least tweaked, governing agenda.

After all that, I suppose he could resign at the Conservatives’ rescheduled Halloween policy convention in Calgary. But that’s not the way to bet it. The Conservative leader looks more like a man preparing to stay and fight.

“Fight” is the operative word. In a cabinet shuffle that sent new bosses to the departments of Justice, Defence, Industry, Immigration, Health, Canadian Heritage and Public Works, one of the most talked-about promotions was relatively minor. Pierre Poilievre, the 34-year-old MP for the eastern Ontario riding of Nepean-Carleton, entered the cabinet for the first time as a minister of state for democratic reform. This was noteworthy because “democratic reform” sounds as though it should embody the electorate’s fondest wishes for better politics, and Poilievre kind of enjoys being a jerk.

I’ve always enjoyed my occasional conversations with Poilievre, whom I find intelligent, funny and no more partisan than the opposition MPs whose daily attacks he takes great pleasure in blocking. But the reviews after his cabinet promotion were scathing. One columnist called Poilievre “thuggish”; another preferred “oily.” Together with Conservative House Leader Peter Van Loan, who kept his job even though the papers were full of predictions that he’d be dumped, Poilievre’s new role suggests that, whatever Harper thinks his government’s faults are, a combative tone in Parliament isn’t among them.

This is not the first time Harper has sent Poilievre to fight when another leader might have sent someone else to make peace. In the spring of 2009, Michael Ignatieff was the new Liberal leader, enjoying a honeymoon in the polls and determined to make Employment Insurance eligibility a winning issue. Ignatieff met with Harper and they agreed to strike a “working group” to study EI reform. Each leader named three representatives. Harper appointed Poilievre. The choice showed he would rather see the whole process collapse than give an inch to the Liberals.

In the end, the working group failed to work, just as Harper had intended. When an election finally came in 2011, Conservative intransigence on EI had nothing to do with the result, which was better for Harper than for Ignatieff.

Nor, despite what you may read in the newspapers, is Harper the first prime minister who ever dug in his heels. Five weeks after he nearly lost the Quebec secession referendum of 1995, Jean Chrétien appointed a Montreal university professor named Stéphane Dion to lead his national-unity effort. Dion disagreed with just about anything the near-victorious “Yes” campaign believed in. Chrétien decided the key to victory wasn’t to agree with his opponents, it was to disagree with them more effectively. It’s always an option.

Harper also demonstrated the uses of creative immobilism this week when he kept Joe Oliver as minister of naturalresources. Oliver was the second-oldest man in this cabinet and, now that Gordon O’Connor has been given the heave-ho, its oldest returning member, at 73. Sending Oliver packing would have been an easy way to enhance the impression of a fresh start. He has been a beacon of belligerence, mocking U.S. Democrats and domestic environmental groups for their opposition to oil-pipeline expansion. But the only change Harper made on energy and the environment was to replace Peter Kent—a relatively spry environment minister two weeks short of his 70th birthday—with Leona Aglukkaq.

In more than four years as health minister, the soft-spoken Aglukkaq—the adjective is perhaps superfluous, as would be a reference to “the dusty Sahara”— made no memorable comment about Canada’s national health care system. By keeping a loudmouth at Natural Resources and appointing a mime to Environment, Harper ensures that the conversation between the two portfolios will come to resemble Penn and Teller’s stage act.

All of this is not to say Harper’s massive cabinet overhaul was an exercise in obstinacy. By moving Jason Kenney to a new jobs portfolio and James Moore to Industry, the Prime Minister promoted two ambitious activists to key economic posts. Kenney, in particular, is constitutionally incapable of holding a job without attracting attention, controversy and the enthusiasm of the Conservative base.

Between elections, of course, we usually hear more about the anger of Harper’s opponents than about Conservative enthusiasm. Yet every time Harper has led the Conservative party in an election—four times since 2004—the Conservative vote has risen from the day of the writ drop to voting day. That trend cannot be eternal, but it’s been pretty robust, so it’s always useful to listen to Harper’s speeches for clues about how he’d run a future campaign.

He was all set to drop a bunch of clues in his highly anticipated speech to the Conservative convention in June, but Calgary’s floods washed it out. Much of what he’d prepared seems to have found its way into his remarks to a Calgary Stampede barbecue in July. It’s a familiar script: Conservatives as pillars of responsibility, everyone else as the deluge.

“Their instincts, both of them, on these matters are all bad,” he said of the NDP and Liberals. “Tax-and-spend inclinations that are so extreme, if we took any of their suggestions literally, we would have a budget that would make the worst European budget look solid in comparison. They’ve got big-government inclinations to build bureaucracy at the expense of families and communities, and to always put the concerns and the welfare of the criminal ahead of the interests of law-abiding citizens.” Throw in the other parties’ “constant need to pit region against region in a game where, when they play the game, Alberta is always put at the very bottom of their little pecking order,” and to Harper, at least, the conclusion is obvious. “What I’m telling you, friends, is that with the Liberals and the NDP, what you see is what you get: dangerous ideas on the one hand, vacuous thinking on the other. And all of it would reverse the progress we have made.”

The hand-picked Calgary audience ate it up. The rest of the country will be a tougher crowd. The Senate spending scandal, still far from resolved, dealt Conservative confidence a body blow. Harper has decided the party’s best chance for a comeback lies in holding its ground and sticking to the style that got it this far. Will it work? I haven’t a clue. But this is the week Stephen Harper got tired of running and turned to fight.

So Peter Kent and Vic Toews are out and Michelle Rempel and Chris Alexander are in.

So what exactly?

Will this new cabinet now commence cooperating with the Parliamentary Budget Officer? Will there now be a full and complete explanation of the cuts the government is making to return the budget to balance? Will it acknowledge that allowing Peter Van Loan’s chief of staff to participate in the selection of the next budget officer was not the best idea? Will we never again hear about the NDP’s “carbon tax?” Will this new cabinet suggest to the Prime Minister that he explain now what he has done over the last two months to ascertain the details of the arrangement between Nigel Wright and Mike Duffy? Will it instruct Statistics Canada to reinstate the long-form census? Will there be new restrictions on the use of public advertising? Will Brent Rathgeber and Mark Warawa receive apologies? Will there be less frequent uses of time allocation? Will so much of the time reserved each day for statements by members be something other than a rote recital of partisan inanities?

Probably not any of that, but there are now “new faces” and soon there will be a “new agenda.” The shuffle was about “generational change.” The faces of Mr. Alexander and Ms. Rempel, bright-faced and blonde, played appealingly on the television and the new minister of immigration and the new minister of state for Western economic development also seem to have been posed directly over the Prime Minister’s left shoulder in the official family photo at Rideau. So at least this shuffle had a theme—the weirdly anatomical “New faces, experienced hands”—and there were nice pictures to go along with the story.

What else?

Leona Aglukkaq inherits the carbon tax farce from Mr. Kent, which at least makes it more difficult for the NDP’s Megan Leslie to ever again accuse this government of putting two grumpy old men in charge of its resource policy. (Joe Oliver remains to continue shaking his fist at environmentalists and yelling at them to get off the national lawn so that he can run a pipeline through it.) And maybe Ms. Aglukkaq will be the lucky environment minister who gets to finally impose regulations on the oil and gas sector.

Peter MacKay’s move to justice at least puts some distance between the procurement of a new jet fighter and Mr. MacKay’s record of saying silly things about that procurement. (And Rob Nicholson’s move to defence at least allows for a relatively easy transition from complaining about the opposition’s lack of support for getting tough on criminals to complaining about the opposition’s lack of support for supporting the troops.) The decision to forgo appointing a new intergovernmental affairs minister might acknowledge that the portfolio had fallen into disuse (or it could be that the Prime Minister didn’t want to set a new record with a cabinet numbering 40).

The decision to put Pierre Poilievre in charge of democratic reform feels like the Prime Minister trolling liberals and parliamentary adherents, but it might simply provide official cover to his unofficial assignment of defending the government against accusations of political unfortunateness. At least now when he stands to dance in front of some charge on behalf of some other minister or Conservative MP, it’ll be because he has a vaguely applicable cabinet portfolio. And his relative youth conceivably gives him plenty of time to sit around waiting for the Senate to be reformed. Mr. Poilievre is a fascinating case. And he now has nominal responsibility for our longest-standing parliamentary dilemma. It is strangely fitting that it should come to this. (And that the young man who once mocked the “in-and-out” charges of violating election spending limits will now presumably be the minister who introduces the government’s electoral reform legislation adds a helpful bit of irony to the storyline.)

With EI reform, pensions, youth unemployment and various other concerns to answer for, Diane Finley was often the most active participant in QP over the past year and so now it would seem that there will be a lot more from Jason Kenney in the fall in the rechristened ministry of “Employment and Social Development.” And it will be his responsibility to justify all that government advertising for a job grant that doesn’t yet exist. And if Justin Trudeau’s concerns for the middle class align with Mr. Kenney’s new responsibilities, this might put the two on something of a collision course. Or, put another way, it might provide an official ring for the fight Mr. Kenney has seemed eager to have with Mr. Trudeau.

Conservative backbenchers had reportedly wanted to see both Peter Van Loan and Gordon O’Connor moved and while John Duncan is now the government whip, the suspendered Mr. Van Loan remains in the spot where he has become a defining character of this era in the history of our parliamentary democracy. We shall see whether Mr. O’Connor’s exit and Mr. Duncan’s genial manner is enough to satisfy the disgruntled and whether the Backbench Spring is to extend into the fall.

And the whole thing was announced on Twitter. Take that, Mr. Trudeau. Rumour has it that the Throne Speech will be relayed as a series of cat gifs.

The average age of this group is apparently somewhat lower than the average age of its predecessor. The future of the Conservative party is somewhere in this group and the new faces will hopefully have some new ideas, or at least some new ideas to convey. The basic mould of the Harper government likely set several years ago, but the future is always full of possibility. And maybe the mould is still basically sturdy and useful.

It has been an honour, since 2008, to proudly represent the GTA constituency of Thornhill in the House of Commons. Prime Minister Harper amplified that honour when he appointed me to his Cabinet, first as the Minister of State of Foreign Affairs (Americas) and, since January 2011, as Minister of the Environment.

Given increasing speculation regarding the coming Cabinet shuffle, statements from a number of esteemed colleagues that they will not run in the 2015 election and should not be considered for cabinet, and, in response to concerns expressed by Thornhill constituents, I wish to clarify a number of issues.

Whatever the outcome of the impending changes to Cabinet, I firmly intend to stand for re-election in 2015.

While it has been a great honour to have served in cabinet, political service does not begin or end in that revered body.

Our Conservative caucus has an abundance of talented MPs and it is only appropriate that other, younger men and women should take a turn in cabinet. I will fully support the PM’s eventual decisions.

If, in the fullness of time and the eventual shuffle, I do find myself a backbench Parliamentarian, I will enthusiastically embrace what will be, for me, exciting new challenges.

Although still officially hypothetical, I would be able to better devote myself to my Thornhill constituents, to their issues, and to the issues of the Greater Toronto Area.

Most important among those issues; growing the economy, helping job creation, protecting our environment, AND, working to ensure the re-election of a strong, stable, majority Conservative government.

Canada’s oil sands are already subject to provincial regulations that are driving investment in new environmental research and bringing emissions down through technological innovation. Alberta has regulations that require large oil sands operators to either reduce emissions or contribute money toward innovative research to improve the environmental performance of the industry.

]]>http://www.macleans.ca/politics/ottawa/go-with-canada-because-we-put-a-price-on-carbon/feed/7The Commons: Now is not the time for subtletyhttp://www.macleans.ca/politics/ottawa/the-commons-now-is-it-not-the-time-for-subtlety/
http://www.macleans.ca/politics/ottawa/the-commons-now-is-it-not-the-time-for-subtlety/#commentsThu, 25 Apr 2013 22:32:01 +0000http://www2.macleans.ca/?p=377333Oil and the climate are at war and you must pick a side

]]>It was just two weeks ago, asked about Alberta’s carbon tax, that Peter Kent was moved to muse aloud about a contentious and contested topic. “There hasn’t,” he ventured, “been a great deal of subtlety in talking about carbon pricing.”

Perhaps this lack of subtlety is something like the root cause of our current impasse. Or perhaps this is no time for nuance.

The foreign press is now referring to Joe Oliver as the Canadian “oil minister, which is terribly unfair to the trees and rocks and water he is also responsible for making use of. Of a year-old op-ed, Mr. Oliver is accusing a NASA scientist of “crying wolf” and suggesting that James Hansen “should be chaining himself to a mannequin in Rodeo Drive,” which would be pointless unless the mannequin was itself nailed down. And now another scientist is likening Mr. Oliver to “a Shetland pony in the Kentucky Derby,” who is “making Canada look like a country full of jerks,” which is terribly unfair to at least the three or four of us who aren’t.

It was on something like this note that Mr. Mulcair stood to harangue the government side this afternoon.

“Mr. Speaker, when the Minister of Natural Resources is not quoting fictional climate scientists, he is attacking the real ones,” Mr. Mulcair reported in his speed-up-then-slow-down way of lecturing. “Yesterday in Washington the Minister of Natural Resources lashed out at a former NASA climate scientist calling his work … ‘nonsense.’ He accused scientists who speak out about climate change of ‘crying wolf.’ ”

There was a question here, but it was mostly rhetorical. “Was the Minister of Natural Resources sent to Washington to insult U.S. government scientists?” Mr. Mulcair wondered.

James Moore, filling in for the prime minister, was no doubt happy to make the contrast Mr. Mulcair had thus invited.

“Mr. Speaker, the reason why the Minister of Natural Resources is in Washington is to fight for Canadian jobs and protect our environment,” Mr. Moore explained. “This is in perfect clear and stark contrast with the reason why New Democrat members of Parliament went to Washington, D.C., to fight against Canadian interests, to fight against the creation of Canadian jobs, and to come back here to Ottawa and offer no plan with regard to climate change.”

“That is interesting, Mr. Speaker,” the NDP leader mused, a piece of white paper now in his hand. “Here is a direct quote from the Canadian Press, April 19, 2013 during the visit of the Minister of Finance to Washington, ‘Keystone will be good for employment in the United States.” More than 40,000 well-paying jobs will be created in the U.S.”

There seemed to be a clap on the government side, before the point of Mr. Mulcair’s point became clear.

“We are fighting for jobs in Canada,” Mr. Mulcair declared. “We have no lessons to take from them.”

The New Democrats stood and applauded.

Mr. Moore started to stand up, but Mr. Mulcair was actually not quite done and now the NDP leader switched to French to state his question as various Conservatives shouted for the Speaker to call time.

“Mr. Speaker,” the Heritage Minister lamented when he was finally allowed to respond, “it is sad that the Leader of the Opposition does not understand comparative or competitive economics. The fact is the Keystone XL project will create jobs on both sides of the border. This project is projected to create over 140,000 jobs in Canada.”

Of Mr. Moore’s fact, there can be no doubt. Of Mr. Moore’s projection, there might be some debate. (The minister’s figure is drawn from a projection by the Canadian Energy Research Institute of jobs “created and preserved.”)

“Just because it will create jobs in the United States does not mean it will not create jobs in Canada,” Mr. Moore continued. “This is a fallacy left over from NDP economics when those members fought against the FTA and fought against NAFTA, and they continue it again today. At their convention they said they took socialism out of the preamble of their constitution, but it is clear that it is alive and well in NDP economics.”

A few rounds later, it was Peter Julian of the New Democrats, lamenting for a government that denies climate change and sells our national resources to the Chinese government. Which might not bother Mr. Julian so much if he realized the Chinese were interested in putting a price on carbon.

Regardless, Peter Kent stood here to proclaim much progress.

“Our government is the first Canadian government to actually reduce greenhouse gases,” the Environment Minister declared. “We have decoupled emissions from economic growth.”

Except that that decoupling would seem to predate most of the government’s policies on emissions.

Mr. Julian was unpersuaded. “Mr. Speaker, that desperate spin does not hide the fact that only the NDP has sustainable policies and that is why Canadians need an NDP government in 2015, because Conservatives failed in the climate change fight,” he proclaimed. “Canadians deserve better.”

“Will the minister stop denying climate change,” the New Democrat begged of the absent Mr. Oliver, “start acknowledging the danger in the rise in global temperatures and support the NDP motion to combat climate change now?”

Mr. Kent moved now to reassure Mr. Julian of at least some general belief on the government side. “Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Natural Resources has made it clear on any number of occasions in any number of venues just how important this government considers the climate change challenge to be,” Mr. Kent said of his colleague.

But then the minister did not want to finish this day without reminding Mr. Julian of what the New Democrats were scheming to do. “At the same time,” Mr. Kent continued, “the NDP would pick the pockets of hard-working Canadians with a $21-billion carbon tax. That would not guarantee the reduction of a single megatonne of greenhouse gases. Our government has a plan. The NDP has no plan, other than to exploit hard-working Canadians.”

]]>http://www.macleans.ca/politics/ottawa/the-commons-now-is-it-not-the-time-for-subtlety/feed/15What exactly is Peter Kent’s position on carbon pricing?http://www.macleans.ca/politics/ottawa/what-exactly-is-peter-kents-position-on-carbon-pricing/
http://www.macleans.ca/politics/ottawa/what-exactly-is-peter-kents-position-on-carbon-pricing/#commentsMon, 15 Apr 2013 13:28:08 +0000http://www2.macleans.ca/?p=370607'There hasn't been a great deal of subtlety in talking about carbon pricing'

In separate appearances and meetings, Kent and Redford both stressed that Canada was taking climate change very seriously and that strong measures were in the works to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in the oil and gas sector … Gone was the federal talk about any form of carbon pricing being akin to a carbon tax that would raise the price of everything. Indeed, Kent took pains to stress that while Ottawa likes its regulatory approach to emissions, he was open to provinces setting up their own plans — as long as such arrangements lead to actual reductions in emissions.

So the Harper government might believe that putting a price on carbon is a terrible idea, but it respects provincial jurisdiction enough to refrain from criticizing provincial governments that decide to implement cap-and-trade systems or carbon taxes. That’s an entirely admirable and mature approach to federalism.

Peter Kent explains…

“There hasn’t been a great deal of subtlety in talking about carbon pricing…

LOL.

… There are those carbon taxes where the revenues go into general revenue and do not guarantee the reduction of a single ton of greenhouse gases. (But) Alberta has a tech fund wherein their revenues are focused only, and in isolation, on technology to achieve further ghg reductions than the emitters in that province are already able to achieve.”

Hmm.

Less than a year ago, Mr. Kent ventured that “carbon pricing in any form is a carbon tax.” There would not seem to have been any subtlety left at that point, at least so far as the Conservatives were concerned. A few months later, Conservative MP John Williamson explained that “cap and trade or cap and tax, a price on carbon is a tax on carbon.”

Over the subsequent weeks and months, the Conservatives have repeatedly criticized the NDP’s plan to implement a cap-and-trade system: saying, for instance, that “a carbon tax like the NDP is proposing would critically hurt Canadian families” and that “the economy would be lost and family would be lost” and that “this costly new tax that will kill jobs, stall the economy and ruin winter” and so on.

So what is Mr. Kent saying now? Is he saying that carbon taxes aren’t necessarily bad? Is he saying that Alberta’s carbon tax is somehow okay or at least somehow less ruinous?

Let’s go back to CP’s report of last Wednesday—when CP paraphrased Mr. Kent as saying the federal government is not against carbon pricing. Here is what Mr. Kent was quoted as saying in that piece.

“I’m saying that carbon taxes where the taxes go into general revenues…

The general “revenue” argument is not new, but I’m still not sure how that matters if, in Mr. Kent’s opinion, any price on carbon is equivalent to a carbon tax and if, as it seems the government wishes to convey, a carbon tax is an inherently bad idea. Unless, again, we’re allowing now that a price on carbon isn’t necessarily a terrible thing…

…, as the NDP’s would, for social engineering, not for the reduction of (greenhouse gases)…

This particular matter of revenue is perhaps an interesting and worthwhile nuance to explore: that any revenue derived from cap-and-trade or a carbon tax should not be used for social programs. If that’s what Mr. Kent means by “social engineering.” This point has been raised in the past: Stephane Dion’s Green Shift used some of the revenue to reduce poverty and Brian Topp raised it as a point of concern during the NDP leadership race.

In 2011, the NDP committed almost all of the revenues from cap-and-trade to what it termed “green initiatives.” And when I spoke with Thomas Mulcair in December, I asked him about this point. He said then that “there has to be an equivalent amount that goes into environmental purposes” and “it has to be concentrated in those provinces, those areas where that money is being generated.”

Is there a possible difference between “environmental purposes” and “the reduction of (greenhouse gases)”? Maybe. But is that suddenly all that remains of this apparent disagreement over the NDP’s cap-and-trade platform?

… that’s something we would consider to be … unworthy,” he said.

So is there a kind of carbon tax that Mr. Kent would consider worthy? Is Alberta’s carbon tax worthy?

The global debate about how to reduce carbon has not really taken a hard look at how effective carbon taxes are in actually cutting emissions, he added.

Fair enough. There are certainly questions to be asked. Which approach would be most effective in reducing greenhouse gas emissions? Cap-and-trade, a carbon tax or regulations. Which would be the most cost-effective and efficient option? Here is Stephen Gordon’s take. Here is Jack Mintz’s take. If Mr. Kent is willing to engage it, there is certainly an interesting debate to be had.

I asked Mr. Kent’s office two questions after reading CP’s story on Wednesday. Here are those questions, with the responses provided.

Does Mr. Kent not categorically oppose all forms of carbon pricing?

Our government has been clear: we will not implement a carbon tax.

And what is Mr. Kent’s opinion of the kind of carbon tax used in Alberta?

With regards to Alberta, the Minister was very clear in the press conference and I refer you to the following statement from the presser on Wednesday: “Well, we’ve been working in terms of our federal sector by sector regulatory process with the oil and gas sector since late 2011. We continue to work with – with the sector, with stakeholders, with the provinces – Alberta and other provinces that are blessed with oil and gas. But I think it would be premature today to talk about where we are.”

These responses didn’t seem to sufficiently explain Mr. Kent’s position on carbon pricing, so I tried again.

The minister is quoted today as saying: “There hasn’t been a great deal of subtlety in talking about carbon pricing There are those carbon taxes where the revenues go into general revenue and do not guarantee the reduction of a single ton of greenhouse gases. (But) Alberta has a tech fund wherein their revenues are focused only, and in isolation, on technology to achieve further ghg reductions than the emitters in that province are already able to achieve.” Is he saying that carbon taxes are not necessarily bad policy?

]]>Mike De Souza finds that the Conservatives purchased carbon offsets to account for emissions related to the Vancouver Olympics.

The Harper government paid $226,450 to conserve trees in a British Columbia forest to prevent its activities at the 2010 Vancouver Olympics from contributing to global warming, say newly released internal memos obtained by Postmedia News. The three memos, prepared for Environment Minister Peter Kent, said the money was used to buy certified credits to compensate for about 16,000 tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent emissions generated from federal employee travel, security, the torch relay and other government activities at the Vancouver Olympics, which were hailed as the first carbon neutral games in history…

The total would be equivalent to paying a carbon tax worth about $13.55 per tonne of emissions. It does not include other credits that were donated and purchased by suppliers and sponsors to make the Vancouver event entirely carbon neutral.

But it gets worse. Not only did the Harper government pay for its emissions, it apparently did so with an official pronouncement of pride in having done so.

Today, Canada’s Environment Minister, the Honourable Jim Prentice, announced the Government of Canada’s commitment to offset federal greenhouse gas emissions for the 2010 Olympic and Paralympic Winter Games.

“Canada is proud to be the first host country in history to help offset the greenhouse gas emissions of its Olympic Games,” said Minister Prentice. “This commitment is one of many ways our Government is contributing to sustainable Games and meeting our global climate change responsibilities.”

Of course, the Olympics occurred in 2010, a year before the Conservatives started criticizing Liberal and NDP plans for cap-and-trade and two years before the Conservatives decided that to put a price on carbon was to wish great suffering upon Canadian families.

That said, the Prime Minister, presumably unaware until now of this price paid, will no doubt now wish to reconsider his generally fond assessment of the Vancouver Olympics. And it is probably a good thing that Jim Prentice quit in November 2010 for he would surely have to resign if he was in cabinet this morning.

]]>http://www.macleans.ca/politics/ottawa/the-harper-governments-scandalous-carbon-price-paying-past/feed/33The Conservatives on pricing carbon: For it before they were against it before they precipitated it?http://www.macleans.ca/politics/ottawa/the-conservatives-on-pricing-carbon-for-it-before-they-were-against-it-before-they-precipitated-it/
http://www.macleans.ca/politics/ottawa/the-conservatives-on-pricing-carbon-for-it-before-they-were-against-it-before-they-precipitated-it/#commentsTue, 02 Apr 2013 16:35:31 +0000http://www2.macleans.ca/?p=367364The farce grows stronger

]]>John Ivison explains how the Harper government’s regulations on the oil and gas sector might be implemented.

Mr. Kent was said to be in Alberta last month, meeting with industry executives and there seems to be a broad agreement on both sides. Companies like Exxon, Cenovus Energy and Total are on record as saying a greenhouse gas levy at least brings cost certainty and reduces concern about trade restrictions on oil sands bitumen based on carbon density. While the feds will not impose that tax, their regulations will inevitably lead to a price being placed on carbon…

… eventually, the deal that Mr. Kent is currently negotiating will be released for public discussion. What is it likely to look like? One thing is certain — Ottawa will not be imposing directly anything that walks, talks or quacks like a carbon tax. The most likely scenario would see Ottawa set a target for large emitters across the country. Then, provincial governments would create mechanisms to meet those targets, via a carbon tax or cap and trade system.

And yet.

For their part, the Harper Conservative are intent on basing the next election campaign message around the NDP’s “dangerous” new taxes and spending schemes.

President Barack Obama favours cap-and-trade. Asked in February what the Harper government would do if the United States implemented cap-and-trade, Joe Oliver said that scenario was a hypothetical he didn’t want to get into.

]]>Environment Minister Peter Kent announced the government’s regulations for “heavy-duty vehicles and engines” this morning. For the purposes of determining the benefit of regulations, the government uses something called the “social cost of carbon.” Here is the EPA’s explanation of that calculation. And here is how the Harper government explains the figure in today’s regulations.

The SCC is used in the modelling of the cost-benefit analysis of environmental regulations in a RIAS to quantify the benefits of reducing GHG emissions. It represents an estimate of the economic value of avoided climate change damages at the global level for current and future generations as a result of reducing GHG emissions. The calculations of SCC are independent of the method used to reduce emissions. The SCC is also used by the United States in their costbenefit analysis of regulations. The values used by Environment Canada are based on the extensive work of the U.S. Interagency Working Group on the Social Cost of Carbon.

The estimated value of avoided damages from GHG reductions is based on the climate change damages avoided at the global level. These damages are usually referred to as the social cost of carbon (SCC). Estimates of the SCC between and within countries vary widely due to challenges in predicting future emissions, climate change, damages and determining the appropriate weight to place on future costs relative to near-term costs (discount rate).

SCC values used in this assessment draw on ongoing work being undertaken by Environment Canada in collaboration with a federal interdepartmental working group, and in consultation with a number of external academic experts. This work involves reviewing existing literature and other countries’ approaches to valuing GHG emissions. Preliminary recommendations, based on current literature and, in line with the approach adopted by the U.S. Interagency Working Group on the Social Cost of Carbon, are that it is reasonable to estimate SCC values at $28.44/tonne of CO2 in 2012, increasing at a given percentage each year associated with the expected growth in damages. Environment Canada’s review also concludes that a value of $112.37/tonne in 2012 should be considered, reflecting arguments raised by Weitzman (2011)14 and Pindyck (2011) regarding the treatment of right-skewed probability distributions of the SCC in costbenefit analyses.16 Their argument calls for full consideration of low probability, high-cost climate damage scenarios in cost-benefit analyses to more accurately reflect risk. A value of $112.37 per tonne does not, however, reflect the extreme end of SCC estimates, as some studies have produced values exceeding $1 thousand per tonne of carbon emitted.

As shown in Figure 3 below, the social cost of carbon values increase over time to reflect the increasing marginal damages of climate change as projected GHG concentrations increase. The time-varying schedule of SCC estimates for Canada has been derived from the work of the U.S. Interagency Working Group. The federal interdepartmental working group on SCC also concluded that it is necessary to continually review the above estimates in order to incorporate advances in physical sciences, economic literature, and modelling to ensure the SCC estimates remain current. Environment Canada will continue to collaborate with the federal interdepartmental working group and outside experts to review and incorporate as appropriate new research on SCC into the future.

For the purposes of the cost-benefit analysis, the government appears to use the $28.44/tonne projection to project $500 million in savings.

]]>The Environment Minister pointedly objects to a story by Mike De Souza* by suggesting that De Souza is an “environmental activist” who favours a carbon tax. Here is the full letter, as printed by the Windsor Star on January 4.

I am writing to clarify a few points from Mike De Souza’s Dec 24 article regarding the federal government’s proposed regulations to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from light-duty vehicles. Our government is committed to protecting the environment and reducing greenhouse gas emissions while minimizing the economic impact on Canadians. We are working with the United States to develop GHG regulations that reflect the highly integrated North American auto sector, which includes thousands of Canadian manufacturing jobs.

Mr. De Souza, like most environmental activists, believes that a carbon tax is the only answer to combat climate change. Our government is fundamentally opposed to broad-based carbon tax schemes like the NDP’s $21-billion plan to tax everything without links to environmental benefits.

Canada has undertaken a sector-by-sector regulatory approach to reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Under our plan, industrial sectors are forced to reduce carbon emissions at the smokestack or tail pipe by developing and deploying innovative technology.

Ours is the first Canadian government to reduce greenhouse gases and we will continue act in Canada’s environmental and economic interests.

PETER KENT, federal Environment Minister, Ottawa

Mr. Kent writes that he’d like to “clarify a few points” about the story, but he doesn’t actually identify any particular parts of the story that he objects to. De Souza’s story is a reporting of the costs associated with the government’s new fuel economy standards as those costs are identified and explained by the Harper government in the Canada Gazette. I linked to that cost-benefit analysis here on December 8. And some of those costs were noted when Mr. Kent announced the regulations in November.

The minister’s letter refers to the NDP proposal as a carbon tax. More specifically, the NDP has proposed a cap-and-trade system. This is a bit of a thing. Mr. Kent, for instance, was first elected as a Conservative in 2008, when the party’s platform included a promise to pursue a cap-and-trade system—a measure the minister now equates with a carbon tax.

Joe Oliver tried to use a letter to the editor to make the government’s case in November. Ironically, in that letter Mr. Oliver deferred to the judgement of “eminent economist” Jack Mintz. Mr. Mintz supports a carbon tax as the best policy option to reduce greenhouse gases.

Canada is halfway to achieving our national effort to meet our Copenhagen target. The combined efforts to date of federal, provincial and territorial governments, of consumers and of businesses will generate half the greenhouse gas reduction required to meet Canada’s greenhouse gas target by 2020.

In this year’s report, Gross Domestic Product (GDP) is projected to be slightly higher in 2020 than in the previous report (by 0.8%), while GHG emissions are lower (by 5.3%). The projected decline in GHG emissions is thus associated with a reduction in intensity, implying greater de-coupling between GDP and GHGs. The improvements in emission intensity are in part due to: i) increased contribution of the services sector, which typically emits less emissions per dollar of GDP; and ii) actual emissions in 2010 were lower than projected, while actual GDP was higher. The decline in emissions intensity was also due to the fact that consumers and businesses are making more progress in reducing emissions. Government programs are contributing to this by helping to accelerate the adoption of energy efficient technologies and cleaner fuels.

Canada is moving forward to regulate GHGs on a sector-by-sector basis, aligning with the U.S where appropriate. The Government of Canada has started with the transportation and electricity sectors – two of the largest sources of Canadian emissions – and plans to move forward with regulations in partnership with other key economic sectors, including oil and gas. Last year’s report included emissions regulations for light-duty vehicles for the model years 2011-2016 as well as an electricity performance standard to phase-out coal-fired electricity, Alberta’s Specified Gas Emitters Regulation, British Columbia’s carbon tax and Quebec’s carbon levy. Provincial policies such as Ontario’s phase-out of coal-fired electricity also made important contributions. Projected emissions levels in the 2012 version of the report have further declined, in part through the inclusion of further federal actions on additional emissions regulations for light-duty vehicles for the 2017-2025 period as well as heavy duty vehicle regulations. Recent provincial actions (e.g., Quebec’s capand-trade, Nova Scotia’s emissions cap for electric utilities, increased stringency of building energy codes, equipment standards and requirements for capturing methane from landfill gas) are also included. Total emissions in 2020 are projected to decrease to 720 Mt.

]]>On Monday, Vancouver Sun columnist Craig McInnes criticized that the the Harper government’s “carbon tax” attacks on the NDP. Natural Resources Minister Joe Oliver has now responded in a letter to the editor.

His plan would raise more than $20 billion in tax revenues from carbon – so it is not inaccurate to label it a carbon tax.

“Not inaccurate” is an interesting turn of phrase. But as we have explained at various points, the reference to revenue is, by the government’s own logic, a red herring. The Conservatives have said that, in their current view, anything that establishes a price on carbon is equivalent to a carbon tax. Therefore, it simply doesn’t matter whether that price results in public revenue or private revenue.

That said, if you want to play along with the idea of government revenue as an important distinction, consider that when John Baird was championing his government intention’s to establish a price on carbon in 2008, he said that industries would pay into a “technology fund.” Here are the details of that proposed fund. Does that count as government revenue?

President Obama recently joined Prime Minister Harper in opposition to a cap and trade system, which Mr. Mulcair supports.

Not quite. President Obama’s press secretary ruled out the possibility of the White House proposing a “carbon tax.” But the President previously proposed a cap-and-trade system. His press secretary’s phrasing—”would”—leaves open the question of whether the President sees a distinction between a carbon tax and cap-and-trade or if, as the Harper government is now trying to argue, Mr. Obama believes the two options are equivalent.

There was some debate during the last election campaign over the precise impact on gas prices, but it’s interesting to see Mr. Oliver defer to the expertise of Mr. Mintz. The eminent economist thinks a carbon tax is the best approach to reducing GHG emissions.

Canada’s trucking industry also came out against a carbon tax because it would raise prices on the goods they transport. Mulcair’s NDP’s carbon tax will raise the price of everything, including gas at the pump, groceries at the checkout counter and electricity in your home. We simply can’t afford Mulcair’s NDP.

The regulations Peter Kent announced earlier this week will raise the price of cars. The government’s regulations for the coal-fired electricity sector will raise the price of electricity. And the Conservatives still have to announce their regulations for the oil and gas sector.

By the way, I remain happy—eager, even—to sit down with Mr. Oliver or Mr. Kent to discuss all this at the earliest opportunity.

(For whatever it matters: Craig’s column referred to my writing on the subject, but I don’t believe Craig and I have ever met, spoken or otherwise interacted. If we have crossed paths at some point in the past—and I’m simply forgetting that—I can categorically say that we didn’t speak or interact in regards to his column before it was published.)

]]>http://www.macleans.ca/politics/ottawa/joe-oliver-tries-to-explain-the-farce/feed/28Why does Peter Kent want you to pay more for a car?http://www.macleans.ca/politics/ottawa/why-does-peter-kent-want-you-to-pay-more-for-a-car/
http://www.macleans.ca/politics/ottawa/why-does-peter-kent-want-you-to-pay-more-for-a-car/#commentsWed, 28 Nov 2012 14:11:54 +0000http://www2.macleans.ca/?p=320379As a result of the greenhouse gas emissions regulations announced yesterday, the purchase price of cars will increase.Officials estimated the cost of an average car would climb by $700 …

]]>As a result of the greenhouse gas emissions regulations announced yesterday, the purchase price of cars will increase.

Officials estimated the cost of an average car would climb by $700 in 2021 and by $1,800 by 2025 when the rules would be fully phased in, though some industry analysts say the price tag could be as much as $5,200 per vehicle depending on the technology needed to achieve the efficiency gains. But Canadian officials also say the motorists would save $900 annually in fuel costs at today’s gasoline prices…

The Center for Automotive Research , an auto industry think-tank based in Ann Arbor, Mich., estimates the cost of the average new vehicle will rise by $5,200 in 2012 dollars as auto makers add expensive new technologies to meet the higher miles per gallon standard. “The [auto makers’] research and development departments tell us the true cost is more like $10,000 per vehicle by 2025,” Sean McAlinden, CAR’s executive vice-president of research and chief economist said Tuesday.

The new regulations follow current regulations that will also increase the purchase price. The Canadian regulations are modelled on the American regulations, which Eduardo Porter questioned in September.

What the government didn’t mention is that these improvements come at a high cost for drivers, automakers and society in general. They could be achieved much more cheaply by raising taxes on gasoline to a level comparable to that of pretty much every other industrialized nation. The new mileage rules are so expensive, in fact, that even if one factors in all the expected gains from the policy — like less damage from climate change and fewer deaths from respiratory disease — many economists think that the costs actually outweigh the benefits.

The reason is fairly straightforward. Fuel-efficiency standards do not really change drivers’ behavior in a helpful way. Gas taxes do. Consider how a gas tax would work. Because it would make gas more expensive at the pump, we would drive less. When time came to replace the old family S.U.V., we would be more likely to consider a more fuel-efficient option. As more Americans sought gas-sipping hybrids, carmakers would develop more efficient vehicles.

]]>http://www.macleans.ca/politics/ottawa/why-does-peter-kent-want-you-to-pay-more-for-a-car/feed/20What will the Harper government’s regulations cost?http://www.macleans.ca/politics/ottawa/what-will-the-harper-governments-regulations-cost/
http://www.macleans.ca/politics/ottawa/what-will-the-harper-governments-regulations-cost/#commentsTue, 27 Nov 2012 17:19:30 +0000http://www2.macleans.ca/?p=320028Megan Leslie writes to the Environment Minister to inquire about what projections and analysis are guiding the Harper government’s environmental policies.The very basis of your government’s decision-making on this …

]]>Megan Leslie writes to the Environment Minister to inquire about what projections and analysis are guiding the Harper government’s environmental policies.

The very basis of your government’s decision-making on this file has been called into question by your inability to provide essential information on cost. Your government’s understanding of the risks to Canada’s economy and the well-being of Canadians has been called into question by your lack of transparency respecting the projected impacts of climate change.

Sound policy decisions must be based on good science and good accounting. You and your government have failed to show evidence that you are meeting this standard. Similarly to your decision to withdraw from Kyoto, your plan to reduce greenhouse gas emissions has been roundly criticized as inefficient, ineffective and more costly over the long term than other plans. With the latest round of international climate negotiations taking place in Doha, Qatar this week, this information is even more pertinent.

]]>The NDP quizzed the Environment Minister yesterday on the cost of the government’s regulatory approach to GHG emissions.

Anne Minh-Thu Quach: Mr. Speaker, in committee yesterday, the Minister of the Environment responded to one of my questions with a trivial statement. When I asked him about the cost of the ineffective sector-by-sector approach adopted by the Conservatives to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, the minister said that the figures were not important. Let us be clear: either the minister has no idea of the cost of his policies, or he wants to hide it. Since I like to be courteous, I will give him another chance. How much is the Conservatives’ sector-by-sector approach going to cost taxpayers?

Peter Kent: Mr. Speaker, that is a slight mischaracterization of our exchange yesterday in committee. Our sector-by-sector plan to reduce GHG emissions started with the regulation of the two sectors that contribute the greatest number of megatonnes every year: tailpipe emissions and coal-fired electricity. The cost-benefit estimates of those regulations can be found on the Environment Canada website with the regulatory impact assessment statement.

Megan Leslie: Mr. Speaker, a mischaracterization? We have the transcripts. The minister seems to know a lot more about made up NDP policies than he does about his own portfolio. Experts confirm that his sector-by-sector approach is not working. It is the least effective and the most expensive approach to GHG reductions. Six months ago we asked the minister how much the plan costs. There was no answer. Yesterday, he said that to him the numbers really are not that important. Is the minister hiding the answer or does he really not know the cost?

Peter Kent: Mr. Speaker, obviously my colleague was not listening to my previous question and was not in attendance at the committee meeting yesterday. The first two sectors have been regulated. The cost-benefits are available. A total number cannot be given until we regulate all of the other sectors in our sector-by-sector plan. The number that Canadians are interested in is the proposed $21 billion carbon tax that the NDP would pick out of the pockets of hard-working Canadian taxpayers.

We looked last month at the costs known so far. Below is the exchange between Ms. Minh-Thu Quach and Mr. Kent at Monday’s meeting of the environment committee.

Peter Kent: I’m not sure if the information I provide will satisfy your question, but in fact the $14 billion that I referenced, and that we referenced at the time of the announcement of Canada’s legal withdrawal from the Kyoto accord, was the budgetary number.

It’s a number that’s based on carbon pricing and international markets. The precise number is far less important than our government’s decision not to send billions of hard-earned Canadian tax dollars abroad to buy hot air credits from depressed eastern European economies.

That was the reason our government announced, from the day that we first assumed office until we gave notice after the Durban conference last year…. The Government of Canada regarded the Kyoto Protocol as ineffective and unfair, particularly in the context of Canada’s circumstances.

With regard to the cost of implementing sector-by-sector greenhouse gas reduction to meet our Copenhagen 2020 targets, these costs are borne on the basis of “polluter pays”, the sectors. We’ve done it in a very non-prescriptive manner, unlike some other countries that use the regulatory tool have done. We’ve done this, for example, in the case of tailpipe emissions with vehicles. We’ve done it in alignment with the United States and with our integrated auto industries. With regard to coal-fired electricity generation, we have done it with the—

]]>http://www.macleans.ca/politics/ottawa/peter-kent-does-not-appreciate-mischaracterization/feed/1How to rule out cap-and-trade without quite ruling out cap-and-tradehttp://www.macleans.ca/politics/ottawa/how-to-rule-out-cap-and-trade-without-quite-ruling-out-cap-and-trade/
http://www.macleans.ca/politics/ottawa/how-to-rule-out-cap-and-trade-without-quite-ruling-out-cap-and-trade/#commentsTue, 20 Nov 2012 14:28:11 +0000http://www2.macleans.ca/?p=316756Lobbed a friendly question yesterday afternoon, Joe Oliver stood in the House and declared as follows.I am pleased to announce that, although the United States is adopting a carbon …

]]>Lobbed a friendly question yesterday afternoon, Joe Oliver stood in the House and declared as follows.

I am pleased to announce that, although the United States is adopting a carbon tax, which the American administration did not say it intended to do, our government will never do so in Canada. We will never adopt the NDP’s $21 million carbon tax, which would cause job losses and increase prices overall. We will continue to lower taxes and stimulate job creation.

Now, moments earlier, Eve Adams had reported to the House that the Obama administration was steadfastly against a carbon tax, so maybe Mr. Oliver had received urgent news to the contrary or perhaps he misspoke. Nonetheless, here was the Natural Resources Minister declaring that the Harper government would never adopt a carbon tax.

So never mind apparently what that Stephen Harper fellow said in 2009. And set aside, in this case, the importance of harmonizing our environmental policies with the United States.

Except that this isn’t quite a definitive statement.

Peter Kent apparently repeated the pledge—”The prime minister has made it very clear that we will not consider a carbon tax”—to reporters after yesterday’s meeting of the environment committee, but what does that mean? (That story references cap-and-trade, but the only quote from Mr. Kent refers to a carbon tax.) Is the Harper government using the definition of a carbon tax that it recognized in 2008 and 2009 (in which a carbon tax and cap-and-trade were distinctly different policies) or the definition the Harper government has been using over the last year (in which a carbon tax and cap-and-trade are exactly the same policy)?

When I asked Mr. Kent’s office in June about the impact of American policy, I seemed to be told two things: that the possibility of cap-and-trade was a hypothetical for which no clear answer could be provided and that the Harper government would not impose a carbon tax.

When I asked Mr. Oliver’s office in September, there seemed to be the same distinction: the Harper government would not adopt a carbon tax, but it was not in a position to comment on the possibility of cap-and-trade.

So that Mr. Kent and Mr. Oliver are declaring that the Conservatives will never implement a carbon tax is not new. But what about “cap-and-trade?” What about any policy that establishes a price on carbon? Anything short of an explicit vow on those explicit grounds leaves ambiguity.

]]>http://www.macleans.ca/politics/ottawa/how-to-rule-out-cap-and-trade-without-quite-ruling-out-cap-and-trade/feed/4Great Moments in Farce: The definitive collectionhttp://www.macleans.ca/politics/ottawa/great-moments-in-farce-the-definitive-collection/
http://www.macleans.ca/politics/ottawa/great-moments-in-farce-the-definitive-collection/#commentsMon, 15 Oct 2012 12:00:33 +0000http://www2.macleans.ca/?p=303259Most of these quotes have appeared here at one time or another over the last year and a half, but in case you were looking for something you could frame…

]]>Most of these quotes have appeared here at one time or another over the last year and a half, but in case you were looking for something you could frame and hang on the wall, here in one place are the greatest moments in the Conservatives’ carbon tax farce.

Conservative party platform, 2004 election. A Conservative government will implement the commitments of Stephen Harper’s February 2004 paper, “Towards a Cleaner Canada,” including … Investigate a cap-and-trade system that will allow firms to generate credits by reducing smog-causing pollutants.

Bob Mills, June 8, 2005. Unlike the smog blind Liberals, the Conservative Party of Canada has a real plan to deal with air pollution. We will legislate caps on smog-causing pollutants like nitrous oxide, sulphur dioxide and volatile organic compounds. We will also propose a cap and trade system within Canada that will give companies incentives to actually reduce smog-causing pollutants.

Mark Warawa, November 2, 2006. Nothing prevents the Montreal Exchange from establishing a carbon credit along the lines that currently exist in Chicago. The notice of intent that we released last week explicitly mentions carbon trading as one of the issues we will be consulting on.

Mark Warawa, November 27, 2006. Mr. Speaker, actually the environment minister had very good meetings with her international counterparts and they were establishing a workshop that will be held within weeks. The EU, U.K. and United States will all be participating in discussions on carbon trading.

John Baird, February 8, 2007. A carbon trading system is certainly up and running in the European Union, whereas a carbon tax…. I suppose it would depend on what kind of proposal you were making. It would be in the eye of the beholder.

John Baird, February 8, 2007. I will tell you that when it comes to compliance mechanisms, domestic carbon trading for the private sector is something we’re open to and looking at. A number of colleagues have pushed me on the idea of the Montreal exchange, as have Toronto and other areas. It’s something we’ll be coming forward on in short order when we release our industrial targets.

Mark Warawa, February 12, 2007. Mr. Speaker, as we have said, and as I have told the hon. member many times, we are open to domestic carbon trading, to looking at it…

Mark Warawa, March 27, 2007. I was quite surprised by some comments made by Mr. Cullen, unaware apparently…. Hopefully, he has read the Clean Air Act. Under clauses 29 and 33, it very clearly talks about carbon trading. It’s on pages 28 and 29. So carbon trading has always been part of the Clean Air Act. The market should decide where that trade will occur. So it is already part of the Clean Air Act…

Stephen Harper, June 4, 2007. Of course, it may not be possible for all countries, or all industries and firms within all countries, to reduce their emissions by the same amount on the same time line. That is why other compliance measures such as carbon offsets and carbon trading are also necessary. They are part of Canada’s plan and, provided they are not just an accounting shell game, they must be part of a universal, international regime.

Mark Warawa, November 29, 2007. We need to look at solutions, and this government is committed to solutions, solutions such as energy efficiency, renewable fuels, carbon capture and storage, a domestic carbon trading market.

John Baird, January 7, 2008. We’ve got to put a price on carbon. We’re doing just that.

John Baird, January 11, 2008. Our plan also will require big industry to pay into a technology fund starting at $15 per tonne of carbon, putting a price on carbon for those who emit the most.

Conservative party policy declaration, 2008. We support a domestic cap-and-trade system that will allow firms to generate credits by reducing smog-causing pollutants.

Jim Flaherty, February 26, 2008. Our government is also providing $66 million over two years to lay the foundation for market based mechanisms that will establish a price for carbon and support the development of carbon trading in Canada.

Ted Menzies, February 27, 2008. In budget 2008 we are taking further action to fulfill our commitments to a cleaner, healthier environment. For example, budget 2008 is committing $250 million for carbon capture and storage projects. Furthermore, our government is providing $66 million over two years to lay the foundation for market-based mechanisms that will help establish a price for carbon and support the development of carbon trading in Canada.

Mark Warawa, March 31, 2008. Our plan includes setting up a carbon emissions trading market, including a carbon offset system, to provide incentives for Canadians to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. We’re providing industry with the tools it needs, the tools of a domestic carbon market, and we’re also establishing the market price of carbon. We’ve heard from industry, we’ve heard from environmental groups, and we’ve heard from our international partners that these are necessary parts of the plan, and they are now part of a plan.

Stephen Harper, May 29, 2008. Canadian industries that do not meet their emission reduction targets will be required to do one of three things. They will have access to a domestic carbon trading system which will include offset credits for non-industrial practices that reduce emissions. We eventually hope to participate in a North American trading regime, depending on what action the United States takes, and I’ll talk about that in a second. We likewise hope to participate someday in a more mature and robust emissions trading regime internationally. As well, industries will have access to credits through the United Nations Clean Development Mechanism … I should mention that while our plan will effectively establish a price on carbon of $65 a tonne, growing to that rate over the next decade, our Government has opted not to apply carbon taxes.

John Baird, May 30, 2008. “As Canada’s Environment Minister, I am pleased to be in Montreal today to celebrate the opening of the Montreal Climate Exchange,” said Minister Baird. “Carbon trading and the establishment of a market price on carbon are key parts of our Turning the Corner plan to cut Canada’s greenhouse gases an absolute 20% by 2020. Clearly, our Government’s action to fight climate change is working hand in hand with groups like the Montreal Climate Exchange.”

Conservative party platform, 2008 election. We will work with the provinces and territories and our NAFTA trading partners in the United States and Mexico, at both the national and state levels, to develop and implement a North America-wide cap and trade system for greenhouse gases and air pollution, with implementation to occur between 2012 and 2015.

Throne Speech, November 19, 2008. We will work with the provincial governments and our partners to develop and implement a North America-wide cap and trade system for greenhouse gases and an effective international protocol for the post-2012 period.

Jim Prentice, January 27, 2009. It is right there in black and white in our platform, and we have now made a commitment in this area. We will implement a North American cap and trade system for greenhouse gas emissions and atmospheric pollution, and we will reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 20% by 2020.

Jim Prentice, February 12, 2009. Canada, in the North American context, has some of the most significant hydro possibilities that remain to be developed, and once a price is put on carbon, many of those hydro projects will become quite competitive.

Jim Prentice, June 10, 2009. The offset system will be a key part of that overall commitment. It is intended to generate real reductions in greenhouse gas emissions by providing Canadian firms and individuals with the opportunity to reduce or remove emissions from activities and sectors that will not be covered by our planned greenhouse gas regulations. It does so by establishing a price for carbon in Canada – something that has never been done before in this country.

Briefing note for Jim Prentice, September 11, 2009. “I think you would agree with me that encouraging businesses and individuals to change behaviour requires appropriate price signals … We believe that a carefully designed cap-and-trade system will send the appropriate price signals to encourage changes and ultimately help reduce emissions.”

Stephen Harper, October 14, 2009. “There will be compliance mechanisms that set a price on carbon but obviously that will come into effect when we have continental or perhaps even an international cap and trade regime.”

Jim Prentice, December 2, 2009. Our policy is simple, to enter into an agreement with the major emitters in Copenhagen and to harmonize our targets and regulations with our partner, the United States, while establishing a carbon trading system.

Jim Prentice, December 3, 2009. The Leader of the Opposition reinforces this government’s strategy for a national cap and trade system that will include absolute caps, put a price on carbon, and be structured so it can be harmonized with a future United States system.

Harper government news release, December 2009. The Harper Government is working in collaboration with the provinces and territories to develop a cap and trade system that will ultimately be aligned with the emerging cap and trade program in the United States.

Peter Kent, May 19, 2011. “There’s no expectation of cap-and-trade continentally in the near or medium future and we don’t believe that it would be wise to go with a shallow market in a closely integrated continental economy,” Kent said. “It can always be something to consider in the future.”

Mark Warawa, December 5, 2011. Mr. Speaker, Europe addressed the issue of the price of carbon continentally. We have said that we will deal with the issue of a cap and trade agreement continentally, if the United States does the same thing continentally.

Peter Kent, June 18, 2012. Carbon pricing in any form is a carbon tax…

John Williamson, September 17, 2012. Cap and trade or cap and tax, a price on carbon is a tax on carbon. That makes it a carbon tax.

It seems to me that Ms. McLeod is attempting to differentiate between a cap-and-trade system in which the government auctions credits (and thus receives revenue) and a cap-and-trade system in which the government gives away credits. It’s not clear to me at this point that the Harper government ever absolutely ruled out ever deriving any revenue from the cap-and-trade system they proposed and pursued. They very well might have. (I previously sought to confirm this, but forgot to follow up with the official I was dealing with. I’ve just now sent a request to a different government official seeking clarity and documentation and will post whatever I receive whenever I receive it.) For the sake of the historical record, it is a detail worth noting.

But here’s the thing (a thing we explained in our last post): According to Ms. McLeod’s Conservative colleagues, whether or not the Harper government expected to generate any revenue from cap-and-trade is entirely irrelevant. Because cap-and-trade, in any form, establishes a price on carbon. And, so far as the Conservatives are now concerned, anything that puts a price on carbon is a carbon tax.

John Williamson, September 17. “Cap and trade or cap and tax, a price on carbon is a tax on carbon. That makes it a carbon tax.”

(Here is Jim Flaherty endorsing a price on carbon in February 2008. Here is John Baird endorsing a price on carbon in May 2008. And here is Jim Prentice endorsing a price on carbon in June 2009. And here, here, here and here Conservatives now lamenting the idea of putting a price on carbon.)

So we’re back where we started. The “revenue” quibble continues to be—according to the Harper government’s own logic—a red herring. And the basic policy that Ms. McLeod and her fellow Conservatives now oppose is still the same basic policy that the Conservative party and the Harper government were proposing and pursuing when Ms. McLeod was a candidate and MP.

I do give Ms. McLeod credit for engaging the discussion. Via Twitter, I asked her a follow-up question and will post any response she offers.

Here again is everything you need to know about the Conservatives’ carbon tax farce.

]]>http://www.macleans.ca/politics/ottawa/cathy-mcleod-insists-on-the-presence-of-water-fowl/feed/14By how much will Stephen Harper raise the price of your Thanksgiving turkey?http://www.macleans.ca/politics/ottawa/by-how-much-will-stephen-harper-raise-the-price-of-your-thanksgiving-turkey/
http://www.macleans.ca/politics/ottawa/by-how-much-will-stephen-harper-raise-the-price-of-your-thanksgiving-turkey/#commentsWed, 10 Oct 2012 12:00:25 +0000http://www2.macleans.ca/?p=301699Last week, Conservative MP Kellie Leitch warned that a cap-and-trade system would raise the price of “Thanksgiving turkey and potatoes.”
Conceivably this means the Harper government was planning to increase…

]]>Last week, Conservative MP Kellie Leitch warned that a cap-and-trade system would raise the price of “Thanksgiving turkey and potatoes.”

Conceivably this means the Harper government was planning to increase the cost of Thanksgiving turkey and potatoes when it advocated for cap-and-trade in 2008 and 2009. But setting the past aside for a moment, this raises the question of how much the Harper government’s current regulatory approach to greenhouse gas emissions is expected to raise the price of Thanksgiving turkey and potatoes. I asked Peter Kent’s office that question last week and received the following response.

The government’s regulatory approach to the reduction of green house gas emissions is not designed to generate revenues and for the most part are not expected to raise costs on Canadians. Given the example of light duty vehicles, the increased fuel efficiency will save Canadians money over the life of their vehicle.

As CP explained last month, the costs and benefits have been estimated for the regulations announced so far. Benefits for the passenger automobile and light truck regulations, as Mr. Kent’s office notes, include “pre-tax fuel savings, reduced refuelling time, additional driving, reductions in criteria air contaminant (CAC) emissions and reductions in GHG emissions.” But there are also about $4 billion in costs, including costs that will be directly imposed on the consumer.

The proposed Regulations are anticipated to increase the cost of manufacturing passenger automobiles and light trucks. These costs are expected to be passed on directly to consumers purchasing these vehicles, and will add an additional $89 to the average purchase price of a 2011 model year vehicle, and an additional $1,195 to the average purchase price of a 2016 model year vehicle (less than 5% of the average purchase price). The benefits resulting directly from the proposed Regulations include fuel savings of approximately 28 billion litres over the lifetime of the vehicles of 2011 to 2016 model years. It is estimated that the added costs to these vehicles would be more than offset by pre-tax fuel savings with a payback period averaging less than 1.5 years.

The gradual phase-in of the Regulations defers most of the price effects to beyond 2020. This moderates the impact on consumers, and results in the share of household budget spent on electricity remaining relatively constant.

In the residential sector, the average annual change over the analytical period in residential electricity prices as a result of the performance standard is expected to have the greatest impacts in Alberta (1.61 cents per kilowatt hour [kWh]), Saskatchewan (0.74 cents/kWh), and Nova Scotia (0.76 cents/kWh). It is expected that the price increases from the Regulations will be passed on to consumers in proportion to their consumption. Households that consume more (or less) than the average would pay proportionately more (or less) of the total costs.

The Regulations will also have a similar impact on electricity prices in the industrial sector with average annual changes in electricity prices of 1.61 cents/kWh in Alberta, 0.82 cents/kWh in Saskatchewan, and 0.76 cents/kWh in Nova Scotia. These incremental price increases are not expected to have significant impacts on the industrial sector in Canada. In general, Canada has low electricity rates relative to many of its global competitors, and long-term trends continue to show that the sector is using less energy for each unit of economic output.

The Harper government still has to determine regulations for the oil and gas sector and other major emitters. Those will carry costs as well. (I’ve asked if a total estimate exists for the Harper government’s regulatory approach and will post that estimate if it is provided.)

But to properly assess cap-and-trade, it is ultimately going to be necessary to both understand how it will be implemented and compare the costs and benefits of such a system to the alternative: specifically, the costs and benefits of the Harper government’s regulatory regime. The potential emission reductions and increased costs of cap-and-trade can’t be evaluated in a vacuum, they have to be judged against the counter proposal. So to use Ms. Leitch’s paradigm, the question on this file for the next three years is this: How much is it going to cost for you to purchase Thanksgiving turkey and potatoes and by how much will greenhouse gas emissions be reduced as a result?

]]>The Canadian Press obtains the paper trail behind cuts to water-quality sampling in the North.

Speaking in Haines Junction, Yukon, the prime minister quickly doused the controversy by saying the move was “not authorized” and that Environment Minister Peter Kent had ordered water sampling to resume once he found out about it…

But a 600-page internal file on the controversy, obtained by The Canadian Press under the Access to Information Act, shows the officials had in fact received a green light from senior levels at Environment Canada. They also indicate Kent was aware of the proposed cuts weeks before they were implemented.

]]>http://www.macleans.ca/politics/ottawa/the-quiet-cuts-that-were-supposed-to-be-someone-elses-fault/feed/3The existential crisis of the opposition MPhttp://www.macleans.ca/politics/ottawa/the-existential-crisis-of-the-opposition-mp/
http://www.macleans.ca/politics/ottawa/the-existential-crisis-of-the-opposition-mp/#commentsSun, 07 Oct 2012 15:37:16 +0000http://www2.macleans.ca/?p=301135Megan Leslie had a dream last night.
Had the weirdest dream about eye-less zombie children taking over the world. I knew how to stop them, but Peter Kent wouldn’t meet…

]]>Between 2pm and 3pm this afternoon in the House, four Conservative MPs—Phil McColeman, Peter Kent, Kellie Leitch and Denis Lebel—combined to make nine references to a “carbon tax.” Mr. McColeman did so during a members’ statement. Mr. Kent did so in response to a friendly Conservative MP’s question about government efforts to clean up contaminated sits. Kellie Leitch did so twice in response to Liberal questions about employment insurance policy. Mr. Lebel did so twice in responding to NDP questions about airport fees.

John Baird also referred to cap-and-trade as a “tax” while responding to a friendly Conservative question about trade policy. (Michelle Rempel oddly failed to use the phrase “carbon tax,” but still accused the NDP of advocating for a “carbon pricing scheme.”)

Yesterday, six Conservative MPs managed to use the phrase “carbon tax.” The day before that it was another half dozen. With one mention yesterday and two today, Ms. Leitch has now used 10 separate interventions to reference the phrase, the most of any Conservative over the last 14 sitting days. With the additions of Messrs McColeman, Kent and Lebel, I count 60 Conservative MPs who have used the phrase at least once in the House.

Here again is the rough guide to the Conservatives’ carbon tax farce. Presumably the Ottawa Citizen editorial board’s question of a few weeks ago still stands.

]]>http://www.macleans.ca/politics/ottawa/making-a-farce-of-parliament/feed/15The Lemonade Stand testhttp://www.macleans.ca/politics/ottawa/the-lemonade-stand-test/
http://www.macleans.ca/politics/ottawa/the-lemonade-stand-test/#commentsMon, 24 Sep 2012 19:42:44 +0000http://www2.macleans.ca/?p=296445As noted, the “revenue” part of the government’s new argument against cap-and-trade is a red herring. But Greg Fingas is willing to respond to it anyway.Now, keep in mind …

]]>As noted, the “revenue” part of the government’s new argument against cap-and-trade is a red herring. But Greg Fingas is willing to respond to it anyway.

Now, keep in mind that this is a minister within the same government which is shutting down and selling off vital public services – depriving countless Canadians of life, limb or livelihood in the process – in the name of deficit reduction. Or, put another way, in the name of closing a gap between expenses and revenue. One might then think that any even faintly competent administrator would consider more revenue to be a plus. And that goes doubly if the increased revenue is paired with a more efficient means of reaching another stated policy goal.

But according to Kent, the Cons’ overriding principle in making government decisions is the glibertarian theory that “revenue = bad”. Which would thoroughly disqualify his party from holding office based on the elementary test of being competent to run a lemonade stand … Moreover, by any reasonable comparison of climate change policies, the Cons would then be choosing to impose higher compliance costs on industry (and ultimately consumers) for the sole purpose of avoiding the “evil” of revenue – even when that revenue would serve to reduce exactly the deficit they claim to be fighting.

In an interview with The Canadian Press, Kent said the NDP’s cap-and-trade proposal to reduce greenhouse gas emissions amounts to a carbon tax by definition, simply because it would see the government generating revenue. The opposition party’s election platform from 2011 shows the scheme would see Ottawa collecting $21-billion over four years. “Their $21 billion is an up-front tax. It’s a revenue generator. Ours is not,” Kent said, explaining how he justifies equating a cap-and-trade system with a carbon tax and dismissing both approaches as inferior.

We’ve already dealt with this “revenue” question—by the government’s own logic it’s a red herring. Even if, theoretically, the cap-and-trade that the Conservatives were proposing previously wouldn’t have resulted in government revenue—and it’s not evident to me that that’s what they were proposing—it would have established a price on carbon. And the Conservatives insist—see here, here, here and here—that a price on carbon and a carbon tax are the same thing. Mr. Kent said so himself just three months ago. “Carbon pricing in any form is a carbon tax,” he said.

So three questions remain to be answered. When did the Conservatives decide that cap-and-trade was equivalent to a carbon tax? How do they reconcile their 2008 election campaign now that they believe what they opposed (a carbon tax) and what they proposed (cap-and-trade) are equivalent? And, given how vehemently they now oppose cap-and-trade, why can’t they commit to never implementing a cap-and-trade system in the event that the United States decides to do so?

Kent says the cap-and-trade idea proposed by the NDP is based on a good theory that indeed was once the preferred approach of Conservatives. But he says the party changed its mind because the theory breaks down in practice, and the Conservatives wanted a system that would guarantee emissions reductions. “It’s a great concept and it’s a minor cost of doing business for large companies, but it’s not proven and it’s got all sorts of negatives,” he said.

Here, maybe, could be the basis for a mature discussion about the practicalities of cap-and-trade and the options available. On that count, it is worth noting that the Conservatives have invested heavily in the unproven technology of carbon capture and storage. And the Canadian president of Royal Dutch Shell says carbon capture and storage won’t be adopted widely unless a price on carbon is established.

“Compliance with regulations is a much more tangible concept than a theoretical trading system,” he added.

The coal rules are not free, however. Federal calculations estimate that the new rules in just that one sector will cost about $16 billion in today’s terms. About half of that is due to increased consumption of natural gas that will be the side-effect of cracking down on coal. But Kent says there is a big difference between those costs and the NDP’s costing of its carbon reduction plan. With the Conservative regulations, the costs are spread out over decades, and none of money goes directly to the government, he explained.

Once again, the revenue argument is a red herring. Otherwise, Mr. Kent seems to concede that the Harper government’s approach is guilty of the primary sin the Conservatives charge against the NDP’s approach: it will ultimately raise various costs for consumers. It just might take longer for the Conservatives to fully implement their approach?

]]>Herein, everything you need to know to understand the Harper government’s latest attempt to attack the NDP.

So what is the basic issue here?

In terms of public policy, this is a debate about putting a price on carbon. There are two ways to do this. You can directly tax major emitters for the carbon they release into the atmosphere. This is generally referred to as a “carbon tax.” Or you can set a limit on the amount of carbon a company can release into the atmosphere and then issue permits to exceed that limit which companies can sell amongst each other. This is generally referred to as “cap-and-trade.” Either way—either set by the government or the open market—a price on carbon is established. And if it costs money to release carbon into the atmosphere, companies will have an incentive to produce less carbon. That incentive will presumably encourage companies to find ways to pollute less (consumers will also presumably have an incentive to seek more environmentally friendly options). And that will presumably help counter the problem of climate change. If the government takes in revenue as the result of a carbon tax or cap-and-trade, that revenue can be used to fund green energy and emission-reducing policies and initiatives, as well as reducing income taxes to counter the impact of the higher costs that impacted companies might pass on to their customers. Here is the Pembina Institute’s briefing on carbon pricing, here is the OECD’s briefing on carbon markets and here is the Environmental Protection Agency’s guide to cap and trade. Here is Wikipedia’s rundown of countries and states that have considered or implemented carbon pricing. And here is Stephen Gordon’s guide to the economics of pricing carbon.

What has the NDP proposed?

In its 2008 and 2011 platforms, the NDP proposed a cap-and-trade system. When he was seeking the leadership of the NDP, Thomas Mulcair presented his own cap-and-trade proposal. (Brian Topp quibbled with Mr. Mulcair on one aspect of Mr. Mulcair’s proposal.)

What do the Conservatives say about what the NDP has proposed?

The Conservatives say the NDP proposal is a terrible, ruinous thing.

That sounds very serious. But your use of the word “farce” seems to suggest something silly is going on here.

You are very perceptive. There are at least three parts to the farce.

First, the Conservatives previously supported and promoted cap-and-trade. And they did so repeatedly and over a number of years. In their 2004 election platform, the Conservatives said they would “investigate a cap-and-trade system that will allow firms to generate credits by reducing smog-causing pollutants.” The commitment was repeated in the party’s 2005 policy declaration. In 2008, the Conservative party’s policy declaration expressed support for “a domestic cap-and-trade system that will allow firms to generate credits by reducing smog-causing pollutants.” In May 2008, John Baird celebrated the launch of a carbon market in Montreal. “Carbon trading and the establishment of a market price on carbon are key parts of our Turning the Corner plan,” he explained. In their 2008 election platform, the Conservatives promised to help “develop and implement a North America-wide cap and trade system for greenhouse gases and air pollution.” The Harper government repeated the pledge in the subsequent Throne Speech. In June 2009, Jim Prentice announced an offset system that would “generate real reductions in greenhouse gas emissions … by establishing a price on carbon.” In September 2009, Mr. Prentice lobbied the Alberta government to support cap-and-trade. In December 2009, the Harper government claimed to be “working in collaboration with the provinces and territories to develop a cap and trade system that will ultimately be aligned with the emerging cap and trade program in the United States.”

During the 2011 election, the Conservatives decided they opposed cap-and-trade. But what’s more, the Conservatives decided that cap-and-trade and a carbon tax were the same thing. And they have maintained this stance in attacking the NDP. Any attempt to establish a price on carbon, Conservative MP John Williamson informed the House of Commons on Monday, is a tax on carbon. Here then is part two of the farce. Because while the Conservatives were proposing cap-and-trade in 2008, they were loudly opposing Stephane Dion’s proposal for a carbon tax. If cap-and-trade is the same thing as a carbon tax, then the Conservatives were both proposing and opposing a carbon tax in 2008.

Finally, there is the lingering possibility that a Conservative government might implement a cap-and-trade system someday. When cap-and-trade legislation stalled in the American Senate in 2010, hope of a continental cap-and-trade system was stymied and Environment Minister Peter Kent said the Conservatives weren’t prepared to go it alone. But—speaking just two weeks after the 2011 election, during which the Conservatives declared cap-and-trade a terrible thing—Mr. Kent allowed that cap-and-trade was still a possibility in the future. I followed up with Mr. Kent’s office in July and Natural Resources Minister Joe Oliver earlier this month and, despite its strident objections to the NDP’s cap-and-trade proposal, the Harper government remains unwilling to definitively rule out pursuing cap-and-trade if the United States decides to pursue cap-and-trade.

How has the Harper government explained these discrepancies?

It hasn’t. The Conservatives have tried to assert a couple nuances—see here and here—but neither were particularly persuasive. Alternatively, the Prime Minister’s Office has tried to assert a statute of limitations on the human memory. No explanation has been offered for how the Conservatives went from proposing cap-and-trade to opposing cap-and-trade or how they reconcile their current position on cap-and-trade with their 2008 election campaign.

What are the Conservatives doing instead of putting a price on carbon?

The Harper government is gradually moving forward with regulations for each carbon-emitting sector.

Oh, but since there’s no price on carbon involved, there won’t be costs associated with this approach, right?

There will be costs associated with any approach to reducing greenhouse gas emissions. The Canadian Press recently tallied billions in costs for the regulations announced by the Harper government so far. The Conservatives are also investing heavily in developing carbon capture and storage technology. But the Canadian president of Royal Dutch Shell recently argued that CCS won’t be widely adopted unless a price on carbon is established.

Where do things stand in the United States?

Both Barack Obama and John McCain endorsed cap-and-trade during the 2008 presidential election, but, as mentioned, cap-and-trade legislation stalled in the Senate and there has been little movement since. Democratic Congressman Jim McDermott has introduced carbon tax legislation in the House and former Republican congressman Bob Inglis is advocating for a carbon tax. The Washington Post’s Ezra Klein has this theory that a carbon tax could be part of a grand bargain between Democrats and Republicans to fix the American federal budget.

So if the United States doesn’t move forward with cap-and-trade does that mean there won’t be a price put on carbon here so long as the Conservatives are in power?

First of all, we probably shouldn’t underestimate a Conservative government’s ability to completely reverse its position on this subject. Second of all, British Columbia and Alberta already have carbon taxes, while British Columbia, Manitoba, Ontario and Quebec are signed on to the Western Climate Initiative, which intends to establish a co-ordinated cap-and-trade system. Quebec is supposed to launch its own cap-and-trade system next year.

Well this is quite a situation.

Indeed. And we haven’t even talked about the torturous existential questions about politics and journalism this raises. We’ll save that for next week’s “A rough guide to things that should inspire profound reflection on the part of all of us.”

]]>http://www.macleans.ca/politics/ottawa/a-rough-guide-to-the-conservatives-carbon-tax-farce/feed/54Nuancing the farce, Part Threehttp://www.macleans.ca/politics/ottawa/nuancing-the-farce-part-three/
http://www.macleans.ca/politics/ottawa/nuancing-the-farce-part-three/#commentsThu, 20 Sep 2012 15:24:05 +0000http://www2.macleans.ca/?p=295591The Prime Minister’s Office tries to impose a statute of limitations on what the Conservatives have advocated for while in government.But what about that 2008 Conservative campaign promise of …

]]>The Prime Minister’s Office tries to impose a statute of limitations on what the Conservatives have advocated for while in government.

But what about that 2008 Conservative campaign promise of a cap-and-trade system, similar to the NDP’s?

“That’s the past,” responded MacDougall. “Our 2011 platform stands. So does the NDP’s — and that includes their plan to ‘put a price on carbon.'”

It’s unclear if this means everything the Conservatives said or did before the spring of 2011—including the bits they might conceivably be proud of—is now irrelevant.

Thing is, the Harper government’s stance on carbon pricing isn’t strictly “in the past.” Last year, Peter Kent said a continental cap-and-trade system could “always be something to consider in the future.” In June, Mr. Kent’s office was unwilling to definitively rule out the possibility. Joe Oliver similarly hedged when I put the issue to him this month.

]]>http://www.macleans.ca/politics/ottawa/nuancing-the-farce-part-three/feed/7‘The suggestion that the regulations have been softened or weakened is a misperception’http://www.macleans.ca/politics/ottawa/the-suggestion-that-the-regulations-have-been-softened-or-weakened-is-a-misperception/
http://www.macleans.ca/politics/ottawa/the-suggestion-that-the-regulations-have-been-softened-or-weakened-is-a-misperception/#commentsThu, 06 Sep 2012 13:09:12 +0000http://www2.macleans.ca/?p=290089As the Canadian Press previewed earlier this week, Peter Kent has announced regulations for the coal-fired electricity sector that are weaker than what the Harper government proposed a year ago.…

]]>As the Canadian Press previewed earlier this week, Peter Kent has announced regulations for the coal-fired electricity sector that are weaker than what the Harper government proposed a year ago.

The federal government is proposing new coal plants only be allowed if they can emit less than 375 tonnes of carbon dioxide per gigawatt hour of electricity generated. In the final version, that standard is 420 tonnes. The draft regulations proposed that old coal-fired units would have to meet the targets at 45 years old, which has been moved to 50. The final regulations have been criticized by environmental groups as a major weakening of the initial proposal.

Kent defended the changes, saying the government heard more than 5,000 responses during the consultation, which persuaded him that changes were necessary. “I think the suggestion that the regulations have been softened or weakened is a misperception,” Kent said. “(The regulations) both significantly reduce greenhouse gas emissions and meet 2020 targets and at the same time … make sure we find the balance between responsible regulations and maintaining our still recovering economy.”

]]>http://www.macleans.ca/politics/ottawa/the-suggestion-that-the-regulations-have-been-softened-or-weakened-is-a-misperception/feed/7Again with the cannibalismhttp://www.macleans.ca/politics/ottawa/again-with-the-cannibalism/
http://www.macleans.ca/politics/ottawa/again-with-the-cannibalism/#commentsThu, 23 Aug 2012 16:26:19 +0000http://www2.macleans.ca/?p=285669Following Ryan Leef’s flub, Peter Kent also introduces Stephen Harper as the “Prime Minister of cannibal.”Speaking as the announcement of a new national park in the Northwest Territories on …

Speaking as the announcement of a new national park in the Northwest Territories on Wednesday, Kent introduced Stephen Harper as the “prime minister of Cannibal” before quickly correcting himself … the cabinet minister blamed Leef for his flub, telling the crowd the MP had regaled him with his own language mishap prior to the park unveiling.

]]>http://www.macleans.ca/politics/ottawa/again-with-the-cannibalism/feed/6Northern Gateway pro and conhttp://www.macleans.ca/politics/ottawa/northern-gateway-pro-and-con/
http://www.macleans.ca/politics/ottawa/northern-gateway-pro-and-con/#commentsThu, 19 Jul 2012 13:29:28 +0000http://www2.macleans.ca/?p=275642Peter Kent seems unswayed by official American criticism of an Enbridge oil spill in Michigan—though apparently he has yet to read the actual report in its entirety.The report has …

]]>Peter Kent seems unswayed by official American criticism of an Enbridge oil spill in Michigan—though apparently he has yet to read the actual report in its entirety.

The report has provided fuel for critics of Enbridge’s proposed Northern Gateway project, which would carry crude oil along 1,170 kilometres of pipeline from Alberta to British Columbia’s coast. Even B.C.’s premier has demanded answers.

But the report won’t change the opinion of the federal Conservative government, which has hailed the Northern Gateway pipeline as important for the country, said Environment Minister Peter Kent. “Pipelines are still, by far, the safest way to transport petrochemicals in any form,” Kent said in an interview Wednesday.

Wild Rose leader Danielle Smith, on the other hand, is ready to consider alternative routes.

“I’ve heard that there are options that would go to the West Coast on a different route that might make more sense,” Smith told reporters during a break in the Wildrose caucus retreat in Chestermere. “There may have been in the past an easier time going through virgin territory,” Smith said. “But something’s changed in the last five years. Landowners are far more active and concerned, environmental groups are more active and concerned. First Nations are more active and vocal about it.”

Land-locked Alberta must get its oil to new markets, she said. But it makes sense to look at existing rights of way “so that we can have the least amount of environmental damage.”

]]>http://www.macleans.ca/politics/ottawa/northern-gateway-pro-and-con/feed/8Pricing carbon, then and nowhttp://www.macleans.ca/politics/ottawa/pricing-carbon-then-and-now/
http://www.macleans.ca/politics/ottawa/pricing-carbon-then-and-now/#commentsTue, 17 Jul 2012 20:12:54 +0000http://www2.macleans.ca/?p=274991An urgent bulletin from the Conservative party of Canada.Today senior Liberal MP Kirsty Duncan confirmed once again that the Liberal Party remains strong supporters of a job-killing carbon tax. …

Today senior Liberal MP Kirsty Duncan confirmed once again that the Liberal Party remains strong supporters of a job-killing carbon tax. Despite being soundly rejected by Canadians, Liberal MPs and leadership candidates continue to advocate for a carbon tax. Kirsty Duncan made her comments in an op-ed for iPolitics.ca where she says the “federal government continues to fail in pricing carbon”. (iPolitics.ca, July 17, 2012)

Kirsty Duncan and the Liberal Party are not alone in their support of a job-killing carbon tax. NDP Leader Thomas Mulcair is also a devout supporter of a carbon tax saying it “will provide a lot of revenue”. (NDP Leadership Debate, December 4, 2011)

Prime Minister Harper and our Conservative Government have been clear – we will never bring forward a carbon tax that will kill jobs and drive up the cost of everything.

“The latest Liberal call for a carbon tax shows the Liberal Party still has not gotten the message Canadians sent them in the last two election campaigns,” said Conservative Party spokesperson Fred DeLorey. “Only Prime Minister Harper and our Conservative Government can be trusted to never bring forward a job-killing carbon tax.”

While the opposition Liberal and NDP are focused on hitting Canadians will a carbon tax that will kill jobs and increase the cost of everything, Prime Minister Harper and our Conservative government will continue to focus on creating jobs, economic growth, and long-term prosperity for Canadians.

During the last election, both the New Democrats and Liberals promised to pursue a cap-and-trade system and Mr. Mulcair proposed cap-and-trade during the NDP leadership campaign. The Conservatives once promised to pursue a cap-and-trade system, but they now equate cap-and-trade with a carbon tax because, in Peter Kent’s words, “carbon pricing in any form is a carbon tax.” And while the Conservatives now criticize opposition proposals to pursue cap-and-trade, they seem reluctant to categorically rule out the possibility of pursuing a continental cap-and-trade system at some point.

Ms. Duncan also writes that “despite this negativity and his government’s unabated rhetoric regarding a carbon tax, the Prime Minister did previously promise a price on carbon of $65 per tonne.”

This is seemingly a reference to the Harper government’s Turning the Corner plan, which sought to establish a “market price for carbon” by setting up a carbon emissions trading market and offset credits. (The plan also included contributions to a technology fund starting at $15 per tonne of carbon.) Here is how Stephen Harper explained himself in a speech to the Canada-UK Chamber of Commerce in May 2008.

I should mention that while our plan will effectively establish a price on carbon of $65 a tonne, growing to that rate over the next decade, our Government has opted not to apply carbon taxes.

Carbon taxes will establish certainty about price, but not about outcomes. The central purpose of our plan is to create certainty about emissions reductions, not to raise revenue for the government. Our plan will compel industry not just to pay for their carbon emissions but to actually reduce them. Industry has told us they want and they need certainty. Our framework provides that. Clear targets, realistic timelines, fair across the board application. Now industry knows what they need to do and when they need to do it.

Mr. Harper’s distinction between establishing a price on carbon and applying carbon taxes would seem at odds with Mr. Kent’s contention that carbon pricing in any form is a carbon tax.

Here is Andrew Coyne’s comparison of Stephane Dion’s and Mr. Harper’s plans during the 2008 election.

]]>http://www.macleans.ca/politics/ottawa/pricing-carbon-then-and-now/feed/4What happens if the United States decides to pursue cap-and-trade?http://www.macleans.ca/politics/ottawa/what-happens-if-the-united-states-decides-to-pursue-cap-and-trade/
http://www.macleans.ca/politics/ottawa/what-happens-if-the-united-states-decides-to-pursue-cap-and-trade/#commentsThu, 28 Jun 2012 12:00:04 +0000http://www2.macleans.ca/?p=270989As previously noted, the Harper government was keen to pursue a continental cap-and-trade system in 2008 and 2009. At the time it seemed that the American administration was equally keen.…

]]>As previously noted, the Harper government was keen to pursue a continental cap-and-trade system in 2008 and 2009. At the time it seemed that the American administration was equally keen. After President Obama’s plans came apart, the Harper government decided continental cap-and-trade wasn’t possible.

In a January 2011 speech, Peter Kent still spoke of the need to coordinate with the United States and in May 2011, Mr. Kent allowed that cap-and-trade “can always be something to consider in the future.” But by that time, the Conservatives had already said that the cap-and-trade proposal of the Liberals was “unCanadian” and the cap-and-trade proposal of the NDP would “wreak enormous havoc on the Canadian economy.” Earlier this month, Mr. Kent declared that cap-and-trade and a carbon tax were equivalent and now the Conservative party is running attack ads that warn Thomas Mulcair, who has proposed a cap-and-trade system, would impose a carbon tax.

So the Conservatives were previously in favour of cap-and-trade and against a carbon tax, but now they oppose cap-and-trade because, they say, it’s the same thing as a carbon tax.

But what would happen now or in the future were an American government to decide again to pursue cap-and-trade? I asked Mr. Kent’s office about that scenario: In the past, Minister Kent has spoken of the need to harmonize or align environmental policy with the United States. If lawmakers in the United States decided to pursue a cap-and-trade system, would the Harper government cooperate with efforts to create a continental cap-and-trade system or would the Harper government refuse to participate?

Mr. Kent’s spokesman responded as follows.

The question is hypothetical. Such a decision would be addressed under the Clean Energy Dialogue and would be decided on what is in Canada’s best interests.

So the government cannot rule out implementing a cap-and-trade system in Canada at some point in the future?

It’s a hypothetical question that I am not in a position to give a definitive answer. The Minister and Prime Minister have been quite clear that our government will not impose a carbon tax on Canadians.

To clarify: Minister Kent has said that cap-and-trade is equivalent to a carbon tax, so does that mean the government would not enter into a continental cap-and-trade system?

The government’s position is clear on carbon taxes. We are opposed to them.

I left it there, but it seems to me that the government’s position on cap-and-trade leaves only two options in this case: either a definitive promise that the Harper government will never cooperate with a continental cap-and-trade system or an explanation as to how it could participate in a continental cap-and-trade system without contradicting its criticism of Mr. Mulcair and the most recent Liberal position.

For bonus points, Mr. Kent might be asked how he squares his government’s position with what the CEO of Shell sees ahead and what the British Columbia government is currently doing (not to mention his government’s previous position).

]]>http://www.macleans.ca/politics/ottawa/what-happens-if-the-united-states-decides-to-pursue-cap-and-trade/feed/11On carbon pricing, the Tories aren’t just battling Mulcairhttp://www.macleans.ca/politics/ottawa/on-carbon-pricing-the-tories-arent-just-battling-mulcair/
http://www.macleans.ca/politics/ottawa/on-carbon-pricing-the-tories-arent-just-battling-mulcair/#commentsTue, 26 Jun 2012 19:24:27 +0000http://www2.macleans.ca/?p=270735In fact, on this issue the government stands against some of the biggest players in global energy

]]>Recently I had the interesting experience of sitting across a board table from a formidable expert on energy and environmental policy as he confidently predicted that putting a price on carbon is an inevitable, indispensible tool in combating climate change.

This expert was neither NDP Leader Thomas Mulcair, who is vilified by the Conservative party in a new attack ad this week for espousing carbon pricing, nor David McLaughlin, head of the National Round Table on the Environment and the Economy, the federal advisory body the Tory government is summarily disbanding for having had the temerity to advocate carbon pricing.

No, the confident, Swiss-accented voice I listened to in that Ottawa hotel meeting room overlooking the Rideau Canal belonged to Peter Voser, the chief executive officer of Royal Dutch Shell, the world’s second biggest company (after only Wal-Mart in revenues, according to Fortune, and, in case you were wondering, a notch above Exxon Mobil).

Among other things, Voser was telling me about Shell’s plan to embark on a fairly ambitious project at its Alberta operations in what’s called carbon capture and storage, or CCS. With CCS, instead of releasing carbon dioxide from oil and gas operations into the atmosphere, where the emissions contribute to global warming, that CO2 is converted into liquid and pumped underground to be sequestered indefinitely in porous rock formations.

It’s not a climate-change panacea, but a promising concept. “The technology could—,” says the International Energy Agency in this report, “if governments commit to specific policies—account for nearly one-fifth of the emissions reduction required to cut [greenhouse gas] emissions from energy use in half by 2050.”

But why would any company go to the considerable expense of CCS when it could just continue releasing CO2 up smoke stacks for free?

Voser’s answer is that carbon emissions won’t be free forever: governments must put a price on them. Shell is so certain of this, he told me, that the company already assumes that a $40-per-tonne price will be imposed within three decades, and therefore doesn’t proceed with any project that wouldn’t remain profitable when that extra price is imposed.

I included part of his answer in a Maclean’s interview published earlier this month. But given the renewed debate around Ottawa these days—especially with the release of that anti-Mulcair ad— thought more might now be interesting. “If you want to achieve certain climate change goals, CCS has to be part of that solution,” he said. “Therefore I think it is up to industry and to the governments to make this happen, and you need the right frameworks to actually do so. So you need a carbon price mechanism.”

I asked why Shell would press ahead with emissions reduction projects before actually being forced to by binding regulation. After all, he has shareholders to worry about and profits to maximize, right?

“As with many other research and development initiatives which we have, we want to push this early to gain the experience,” Voser said. “There are not many places in the world where you have [effective carbon pricing] now. But we think in 30 years it will be part of the business model.”

His viewpoint is widely shared. The logic behind carbon pricing—most likely either a tax on fossil fuels or a cap-and-trade system that allows companies to sell emission permits back and forth—is powerful. Government would make it expensive to pump out CO2, but leave it to private-sector players to figure out the cheapest ways to cut emissions. All other regulatory approaches look clumsy by comparison. This is basically the case argued for several years by the National Round Table on Environment and Economy, much to the annoyance of the Conservatives.

They are now taking a surprisingly rigid position against any form of carbon pricing. Based on what Environment Minister Peter Kent recently told CBC’s Evan Solomon, the Tories no longer oppose only the broadest form of carbon tax (as proposed Stéphane Dion is his disastrous 2008 election run as Liberal leader), but also the cap-and-trade option, which use to be in the Conservative platform (it’s on page 32 here).

I should stress that Voser did not wade in on Canadian politics, and did say he supports the federal government’s push to streamline environmental approval processes for energy projects. Still, on the fundamental question of carbon pricing, it’s worth noting that the government isn’t just scrapping with opposition politicians and environmental policy wonks—they’re also standing against the corner-office perspective of at least one of the very biggest players in the global energy business.

That leaves just 144 Conservatives (excluding the Prime Minister) left to be speculated about between now and whenever Mr. Harper goes to Rideau. Actually, 145 if you include the stuffed dog that participated in last week’s C-38 vote marathon.